Guest guest Posted December 26, 2001 Report Share Posted December 26, 2001 Dear KK, You have raised very good points. In my limited fashion let me try to explain (see below). - "K Kathirasan NCS" <kkathir <advaitin> Wednesday, December 26, 2001 6:31 PM RE: Re: My thoughts on Samadhi & Advaita > Namaste Viswanathanji > > From the discussions I learn that our premises are different. One school of > thought believes that thru Nirvikalpa Samadhi one can gain knowledge of the > Self while the other holds that Nirvikalpa Samadhi cannot deliver the > knowledge. The argument for the latter is strengthened with the conviction > that Atma can never be objectified or experienced because it is the ONLY > invariable experience in all the 3 states of experiences i.e. waking, > dreaming & deep sleep. So the Atma experience is 'accomplishing the > accomplished', like the 10th man story. I consider Nirvikalpa Samadhi being an experience, which happens only when the limited self completely drops and in that experience the luminous Self is revealed. To make sense out of that experience one has to go to Scriptures or Guru's like Ramana, which or who help acquire the knowledge. The objectification of Self occurs only in the normal ignorant state and not during Nirvikalpa Samadhi, since the "I" dissolves into the Self. In the normal state to which one returns after Nirvikalpa Samadhi, that experience may still be objectified if there is lack of true knowledge from Scriptures and real Guru's (There may be visible exceptions to this in cases such as Ramana). On the other hand, if the person continues to reside in the Nirvikalpa Samadhi state, the objectification vanishes completely even during the three known states, viz., i.e. waking, dreaming & deep sleep. Many times the true Guru's and Saints, although residing in Nirvikalpa Samadhi all the time, may talk to the visitors, questioners, and disciples, as though it is objectified. > From what I have learnt, knowing 'I am Atma' and being established in it is > enough to be released from Samsara. Nirvikalpa Samadhi is not a > pre-requisite for Moksha. That knowing "I am Atma" is more than the knowledge gained from books and teachers. The knowing, in my parlance, needs in addition the experience, which exists only for the normal ignorant state. Knowing and being established in "I am Atma" are both descriptions of experiences with reference to the ignorant normal state. In that established state the knowledge itself vanishes; just the being exists. Such a being is liberated. This may be semantics for some and not acceptable for purists, who believe knowledge is the only source for liberation. > I believe we are also yet to discuss how the > Samadhi experience brings upon the experiencer the knowledge of Atma being > Satchitananda swarupam. The point raised above may be much more controversial! My belief is that the Nirvikalpa Samadhi experience in itself provides an open window for the true knowledge that Atma is the Satchitananda swarupam, which can occur through Grace, since the ignorance is removed. > I have one more question. If Nirvikalpa Samadhi is all that is necessary, > then I don't understand why Lord Krishna wasted 17 chapters in the Gita > teaching Arjuna. If all our problems are solved just by Nirvikalpa Samadhi, > then what Lord Krishna should have done is to make Arjuna have that > experience of Samadhi.? Lord Krishna is teaching Arjuna who is the normal ignorant and confused person in the battle field, similar to most humans in their normal state of day-to-day existence. Arjuna was there in the battle field to correct the wrongs done to the Pandavas and he had to perform his dharmic duty as a Kshatrya. Lord Krishna had to educate Arjuna on his dharmic duty. If, on the other hand, Lord Krishna had given Arjuna a taste of Nirvikalpa Samadhi at that time, on returning back to the normal ignorant state Arjuna would have been a total wreck with enormous confusion and would have failed to perform his dharmic duty. Also for normal ignorant humans suddenly jumping into Nirvikalpa Samadhi (even if it is possible) may be disasterous, if some knowing had not occurred earlier in this or earlier life. This is where the Scriptures and real Guru's are of great help, since they can help trigger the forgotten knowledge or knowing. Often times, in such cases, reading Scriptures and listening to teachers provide a basis to gain true knowledge by oneself. Sorry. Once again my response is wordy. Hopefully it is clear enough. -- Vis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 27, 2001 Report Share Posted December 27, 2001 Namaste Viswanathanji, Please see my comments below (my previous reply snipped): > I consider Nirvikalpa Samadhi being an experience, which happens only when > the limited self completely drops and in that experience the luminous Self > is revealed. To make sense out of that experience one has to go to > Scriptures or Guru's like Ramana, which or who help acquire the knowledge. > The objectification of Self occurs only in the normal ignorant state and > not > during Nirvikalpa Samadhi, since the "I" dissolves into the Self. In the > normal state to which one returns after Nirvikalpa Samadhi, that > experience > may still be objectified if there is lack of true knowledge from > Scriptures > and real Guru's (There may be visible exceptions to this in cases such as > Ramana). On the other hand, if the person continues to reside in the > Nirvikalpa Samadhi state, the objectification vanishes completely even > during the three known states, viz., i.e. waking, dreaming & deep sleep. > Many times the true Guru's and Saints, although residing in Nirvikalpa > Samadhi all the time, may talk to the visitors, questioners, and > disciples, > as though it is objectified. > > KK: May I know what is this limited self which completely drops? If you are referring to the body-mind-sense complex, then I can agree with you sir. But what we say is that the Self is always revealing itself as Awareness/Consciousness in the 3 states of experience. Therefore, there is no need for a Samadhi experience to reveal the Atma. Shastra pramana and shraddha are enough. It sounds impossible for anyone to reside in the Nirvikalpa Samadhi all the time (if we consider it to be a mindless state), because we can't account for his transactions with the world without a mind. But it can be a possibility if we take that Nirvikalpa state as a state where there are no erroneous notions about oneself, in other words the absence of identification with body-sense-mind complex. Then it will make alot of sense. > That knowing "I am Atma" is more than the knowledge gained from books and > teachers. The knowing, in my parlance, needs in addition the experience, > which exists only for the normal ignorant state. Knowing and being > established in "I am Atma" are both descriptions of experiences with > reference to the ignorant normal state. In that established state the > knowledge itself vanishes; just the being exists. Such a being is > liberated. > This may be semantics for some and not acceptable for purists, who believe > knowledge is the only source for liberation. > > KK: From what I learnt, the mahavakya 'Tat Tvam Asi' (not Samadhi) is enough to liberate the Jiva provided he/she has the necessary qualifications such as Shama, Dama, mumukshutvam etc.... > The point raised above may be much more controversial! My belief is that > the > Nirvikalpa Samadhi experience in itself provides an open window for the > true > knowledge that Atma is the Satchitananda swarupam, which can occur through > Grace, since the ignorance is removed. > > KK: Sir, the above is very speculative and most of it all it mystifies Vedanta thereby making it non-communicable wisdom. > Lord Krishna is teaching Arjuna who is the normal ignorant and confused > person in the battle field, similar to most humans in their normal state > of > day-to-day existence. Arjuna was there in the battle field to correct the > wrongs done to the Pandavas and he had to perform his dharmic duty as a > Kshatrya. Lord Krishna had to educate Arjuna on his dharmic duty. If, on > the > other hand, Lord Krishna had given Arjuna a taste of Nirvikalpa Samadhi at > that time, on returning back to the normal ignorant state Arjuna would > have > been a total wreck with enormous confusion and would have failed to > perform > his dharmic duty. > KK: This proves that Nirvikalpa Samadhi cannot remove the ignorant person's confusion and problems, thereby making a person a total wreck. Swami Chinmayanandaji once said that moksha is NOT 'Freedon from action' BUT 'Freedon in action'. I think his statement truly the Vedantic concept of moksha. It views a mukta as not a total wreck but a person who engages in the world yet knowing himself to be free from it. So if Nirvikalpa Samadhi makes a person a total wreck with enormous confusion, it can never be a worthy accomplishment. Moreover you mentioned that the Samadhi experience 'opens a window for the true knowledge that Atma is the Satchitananda swarupam, which can occur through Grace, since the ignorance is removed'. So where is the place for confusion when ignorance is removed and can a person be a total wreck after knowing oneself to be Satchitananda? > Also for normal ignorant humans suddenly jumping into Nirvikalpa Samadhi > (even if it is possible) may be disasterous, if some knowing had not > occurred earlier in this or earlier life. This is where the Scriptures and > real Guru's are of great help, since they can help trigger the forgotten > knowledge or knowing. Often times, in such cases, reading Scriptures and > listening to teachers provide a basis to gain true knowledge by oneself. > Sorry. Once again my response is wordy. Hopefully it is clear enough. > KK: This will be my last post on this topic. Perhaps other members can contribute. I would like to thank everyone for their patience with my rattlings and apologies if it has taken too much of your time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 27, 2001 Report Share Posted December 27, 2001 hariH OM! namaste. we tend to glorify and "exotify" this [state of] nirvikalpa samadhi. it simply implies "experience void of thought." this in turn implies one's natural state of Being. so we are innately in sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi. but the thing telling us otherwise is simply the Mind. the ego-Mind. now, to my understanding, *everyone* is aware they're experiencing [their] natural state to one degree or another. critical thing is when it uniquely reaches a certain "intellectually noticeable" level, one thus places it in a special category (in our case, defining it as NS), which was previously non-existent in one's database of experientially awareness-based events. the best illustration of this glimpsing of the direct experience of our innate sat or pure Being [without the diversion of the ego-Mind], is for example evidenced when we get the chills or "goosebumps" as a result of rightly tuning into some event in nature, some piece of music, some inexplicable human-transcendental eyecontact with another, some thrill via life's unexpected happenings.....all made possible specifically because the Mind is somehow not rationally engaged or preoccupied with its subconscious-spun diversions within [that given] span of time.. so the thing becomes: how to get to or *live in* this no-Mind state *while awake*, and achieving such for sustained stretches of time. this is where one's sadhana or spiritual training comes in. and there are numerous valid/expedient ways of getting there. i had my first NS event in 1967 while walking to a friend's one spring morning, an elementary school bell ringing in the midst of my walking by, when suddenly hundreds of kids coming out of and going back into the school doors, and i felt an unequivocal at-one-ment with the children and the entire world itself, sustained for 3 or 4 minutes or so. completely "blissed out" with sheer wonder and beauty of the ways things *really* are [i surmised quite automatically at the time, that is, without any process of rational thinking that delivered that insight that needed no qualification, but was a direct knowing]. and ever since, the experience would intermittantly return with greater frequency as well as longer durations, until it became the foundation of my daily awareness. now i have the reverse. commonplace NS with interludes of apparent disconnects with that foundation, until i put things back in order with instantaneous habit of self-inquiry, and the mental-formed "disconnect dilemma" dissipates. i personally don't think it's possible to be perfected as long as one is embodied and thus subject to prarabdha karma. but i also believe it's more than this. i've come to believe that we will eternally desire some form of embodied manifestation, and therefore be subject to an inevitable flaw due to the fact that manifestation precludes the laws and conditions of Relativity, which necessitate the properties of polarization. however, as i mentioned in my last post, as long as the individual maintains the foundational connection with the substratum brahman Self, the necessary Flaw inhabiting the body-mind complex needn't be anything of concern. as far as the necessity of NS as prerequisite to the jivanmukthi state, i would say coming to understand its true nature is indispensable. that it isn't as elusive and rare as our minds have made it to be. that, knowledge coupled with devotion (jnanayog plus bhakthiyog) in fact delivers it, being our natural energy state. as to "how the 'experiencer' actually concludes that the Atma is indeed Satchitananda swarupam," again isn't a matter of a rational process in thinking, but an intuitive [buddhic] certainty that needs no qualification! OM shaanthi. -frank Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 27, 2001 Report Share Posted December 27, 2001 Hi Frank-ji, You said it! For many people, nirvikalpa samadhi, which is just one of many different comings and goings, *implies* one's natural state of Being. This samadhi and this implication are often (mis)taken for that state of Being. I've known people depressed and saddened for years, after attaining then losing nirvikalpa samadhi, which they had been taught was IT. OM! --Greg At 09:23 PM 12/27/01 +0000, egodust wrote: >we tend to glorify and "exotify" this [state of] nirvikalpa samadhi. >it simply implies "experience void of thought." this in turn implies >one's natural state of Being. so we are innately in sahaja nirvikalpa >samadhi. but the thing telling us otherwise is simply the Mind. the >ego-Mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 27, 2001 Report Share Posted December 27, 2001 Dear K Kathirasan NCS, It is evident from the trend of your recent posts, that you are really trying to determine the value of Nirvikalpa Samadhi for the attainment of the Knowledge of the Self. There are two popular views which many posters participating in this discussion seem to be upholding: 1) 'The Upanishadic teaching can only yield 'Indirect Knowledge' of the Self, and for the 'Direct knowledge' of the Self, Nirvikalpa Samadhi is absolutely necessary.' -or- 2) 'While it may be the case that some aspirants can get the 'Direct Knowledge' of the Self merely from the Upanishadic teaching, nevertheless, others can get that same 'Direct Knowledge' of the Self from Nirvikalpa Samadhi independent of the Upanishadic teachings. I will attempt to show that both these views are totally wrong, and that Nirvikalpa Samadhi is not only UTTERLY USELESS for the attainment of the 'Direct Knowledge' of the Self, but that it has many potential defects, perhaps the most common being the 'Spiritual Arrogance' that is often produced in those who claim to have attained such an 'exalted' state (i.e.:" I had Nirvikalpa Samadhi and you have not.". " I now have the 'Direct Knowledge' of the Self, because I attained Nirvikalpa, and others who have not attained Nirvikalpa can not have the 'Direct Knowledge' of the Self.I was in Nirvikalpa for three days, and you were in Nirvkalpa for only three minutes.". "My Guru was in Nirvikalpa for three weeks!". and other such egotistical nonsense.) And in addition I will try to demonstrate that,( in spite of any declarations made to the contrary by modern day Advaita teachers, be it Ramana Maharshi, Swami Chinmayananda, Swami Vivekanada, Kanchi Shankaracarya, or anyone else who you care to cite as an 'authority') the teaching that the attainment of Nirvikalpa Samadhi is either, 'the ONLY means for the attainment of the 'Direct Knowledge' of the Self', or, 'that it is merely ONE OF THE MEANS for the attainment of the 'Direct Knowledge' of the Self', goes against the Vedantic Scriptures, Sri Shankaras' and Sureswaras' commentaries, Reason , and Experience (Sruti,Yukti Anubhava Virudhaha)!! Let us begin by examining exactly what this state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi can and cannot be. The word Nirvikalpa literally means 'without thought' or 'without imagination', however, in a more general sense, it can be described as a state in which all distinctions have subsided. This includes not only the distinctions of the 'mind' and the 'senses' but also of 'time' and 'space', as well as. the absence of the Subject and the Object, the absence of an Experiencer and the Experienced, the absence of the Agent and his Action, the absence of a Knower and the thing Known. In short it refers to a state in which the awareness of any duality has ceased. Now I ask you, as you yourself have asked, "How is it possible for a person to know the Self to be Satchitananda Svarupam (of the nature of Absolute Existence, Absolute Consciousness, Absolute Bliss) in the state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi?" He cannot! In that state he can't know himself to be the Self, an individual, or a broomstick. If he "knows:" anything, "realizes" anything, experiences anything, he is by definition not in the state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi. To think otherwise commits one to the dogma that Knowledge can arise even in the absence of a 'means of knowledge'. In this state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi there is no functioning of the senses or the mind or the Upanishadic teaching, how can the knowledge of anything arise? There are some who would counter these objections by admitting that while there are no 'means of knowledge' functioning in the state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi, and therefore the 'knowledge of the Self does not arise in that state, nevertheless, when one comes out of that state he is able to recollect his experience of the 'absence of all duality' or to put it in other words, to recollect his 'experience of Non Duality' and this is what is indicated by saying that he has attained the 'Direct Knowledge' of the Self, or that Nirvikalpa Samadhi is the 'means' of Knowing the Self. But this argument cannot be accepted, for if it were true that merely by attaining a state in which 'the awareness of all duality has ceased' or one in which 'Non Duality alone obtained' one could then come to Know the Self, then it must be specified why it is the case that in other states in which the experience of duality has totally ceased, such as faint, coma, deep sleep, etc, the knowledge of the Self does not arise. No one ever assumes that merely because he fainted, was in a coma, or fell into deep sleep, and thereby was not aware of any duality, of any Subject or Object, of any world or an experiencer of that world, that the dualistic world was not then existing during those states, or that the dualistic world doesn't exit or that it is not real. In the same way, no one can claim to' know' that 'the world of duality' which was appearing before the state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi and which then ceased to appear during the state of Nirvilapa Samadhi, and which made its appearance again after the state of Nirvikalpa, was not existing during that state, nor that it doesn't exist ,nor that its not real, merely because he was not aware of it during his temporary state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi. (And this is exactly what Patanjali himself concluded after attaining his Nirvikalpa Samadhi, I.E: that in fact the 'world of duality' does exit, even during the state of Nirvikalpa, but, he conjectured, that by attaining the Nirvikalpa state, one could come to realize that the Self is eternally free from and unattached to the 'real world of duality'). But this contradicts the 'Direct Knowledge' of the Self as expounded in the Upanishads, For the Self of the Upanishads is Non Dual, There is no second thing called the 'world of duality' which can be said to exist or to be real. In fact, even the so called multiplicity of states called waking, dream, deep sleep, fainting ,coma ,Nirvikalpa, hypnotic, mystical. hallucinatory, etc., are all temporary, all changing, and ultimately all false. They are in truth nothing but the Self misconceived, and this Direct Knowledge comes only from the Upanishadic teaching and not from the attainment of any new 'state'. Attaining a new state is not a means (pramana) to know the Self. He who thinks that he is attaining different states is not a knower the Self, the Upanishada Purusha, the Self which is exclusively taught by the Upanishads, and which is Unchanging, whose eternal nature is Nirvikalpa and who is beyond all time and space and so beyond all transitory 'states'. At this point, it is easy to imagine how all the supporters of Nirvikalpa Samadhi are ready to point out the Himalayan blunder that I have committed. The unforgivable error of having equated the sublime state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi, in which one is "Totally Conscious", and which is very hard to attain, and which the great Sages of the past and present have described with the highest acumens,-- with the common state of Deep Sleep, in which one is "Totally Unconscious" and "Ignorant of his true Self", and which is attained by all and sundry without any effort whatsoever! Yet this identification is no personal blunder of my own, for this same identification has been made by the Upanishads and Sri Shankara himself: "Just as in Deep Sleep and Samadhi, though there is a natural eradication of all distinctions"….(Here Shankara clearly identifies both states, as states in which one is no longer aware of any duality).". But, because there is the persistence of Ignorance (in both these states)"…(Here Shankara indicates that by attaining either Deep Sleep or Samadhi, Ignorace is not destroyed)…"duality once again makes it appearance"…But for the Muktas, duality does not appear again, FOR IN THEIR CASE (unlike those who have merely gone to Deep Sleep or attained Samadhi) Ignorance has been destroyed by Knowledge (obtained from the teachings of the Scripture and Guru.)" Sutra bashya 2-1-9 And while it can be admitted that there are differences to be noted with regards to how one may enter into the state of Nivikalpa Samadhi, as opposed to the state of Deep Sleep, as well as to the differences that obtain after one comes out of Nirvikalpa Samadhi, as opposed to how one comes out of Deep Sleep, nevertheless, the 'experience' in both these states MUST be identical, For if there were any distinctions in one state that was not obtaining in the other, then that very 'distinction' would disqualifiy it for belonging to a state in which all distinctions have ceased, be it Nirvkalpa Samadhi or Deep Sleep. If it is asserted that in Nirvikalpa state one is aware of an 'Infinite Bliss', an 'Inconceivable Peace', a' Non-Dual Self' or any other thing that does not appear in Deep Sleep, then you have given up the position that the Nirvikalpa state is really Nirvikalpa , for the experience of anything requires the minimum duality of an experiencer and the thing that he is experiencing, be it Bliss, Peace or Non Duality. Actually, the cause of this confusion can be laid at the feet of those champions of Nirvikalpa Samadhi who look upon Deep Sleep as merely a state of unconsciousness, disregarding or misinterpreting what the Vedantic Scriptures, as well as what Shankaras' commentaries have to say about it.: To begin with, while it is true that the common man takes himself to be 'Ignorant ' or 'Unconscious' in the state of Deep Sleep, the Sruti presents us with another veiwpont-the viewpoint of the actual experience of Deep sleep. From this standpoint the Sruti describes Deep Sleep as follows: "That (state of Deep Sleep) is his form-beyond desires, free from evils and fearless. As a man fully embraced by his beloved wife, does not know anything at all, either internal or external, so does the individual self, fully embraced by the Supreme Self, not know anything at all, either internal or external. That is His form-in which all objects of desire have been attained, all desires are the Self, and which is free from desire and devoid of Grief" Brhadaranyaka .4-3-21 (In his commentary on this verse Shankara clearly explains that the reason one does not know the Self in Deep Sleep, or anything else, is not because one is then Unconscious or Ignorant, but because of Unity , because he is then the Non Dual Self alone.) "In this state a father is no father, a mother no mother, worlds no worlds, the gods no gods, the Vedas no Vedas. In this state, a thief is no thief, the killer of a noble Brahmana no killer, an outcast no outcaste, …a monk no monk, a hermit no hermit. This form of His is untouched by good work and untouched by evil work, for He is then beyond all the woes of the heart.That he does not see in that state is (NOT BECAUSE HE IS IGNORANT OR UNCONSCIOUS BUT) because, THOUGH SEEING THEN, he does not see; for the vision of the witness can never be lost, because it is IMPERISHABLE. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it could see." Brhad. Upa. 4-3-22,23 "….Where for that sleeping one, he doesn't desire any desirable thing, nor does he see any Dream, that is the state of Deep Sleep." (Brhadaranyaka 4-3-19,) Here 'Deep Sleep' actually means one's own true nature of being bereft of the duality that appears in both Waking and Dream. Because Waking and Dream states are false appearances, it is only from the point of view of the waking state that one imagines that Deep Sleep is a state of Unconsciousness or Ignorance. In other words we have superimposed the concept of Deep Sleep on the Real Self from the biased viewpoint of the Waking state. But because in truth, so called 'Deep Sleep' is our true nature, and since ones own true nature can never be given up, how we were in Deep Sleep is exactly how we are right now. But because of ignorance we have identified with the adjuncts that are appearing in waking and dream and from that perspective only it is said that one 'attains his own true nature in Deep Sleep( Svapati=He Sleeps= Sva (His own Self) Apati(He enters) As Shankara puts it: "Besides there is no time when the individual has not become one with the Absolute Brahman, for one's intrinsic nature can never disappear. It is only relative to the 'seeming' foreign aspect which he assumes in dream and waking, owing to the contact of conditioning associates, that it is now being said that he attain his 'true nature' from the dissolution of that foreign aspect(in Deep Sleep)." Sutra Bhasya 3-2-7 " When the two adjuncts of waking and dream disappear, THEN THE SELF REMAINS IN HIS TRUE NATURE IN DEEP SLEEP. It is then said that 'he merges as if' (praleena iva ) in Deep Sleep." Sutra Bhasya 1-1-9 In other words, from the standpoint of the direct experience of 'Deep Sleep', it is only the Pure Self, Pure Being, Pure Consciousness and Pure Bliss. (I refer all those interest in this subject i.e. that in the state of Deep Sleep one is in fact remaining in his own true nature of Eternal Consciousness to see what Shankara has to say in his Brhidaranyaka Bhasaya(4-3-21 to 4-3-32) ). Thus, just like in Nivikalpa Samadhi whereby one "becomes" one with the Non Dual Self, so also in Deep Sleep one "becomes' one with the Non Dual Self. But in both these states there is no knowledge of this fact. And therefore this knowledge has to be attained in the waking state where there obtains the distinctions of Guru and Shastra etc. Shankara has given us a comprehensive view of the totality of human experiences by viewing ALL STATES of experience as falling into one of two categories. 'Darshana Vriti' (a state in which one is aware of something) and 'Adarshana Vriti (a state in which one is not aware of anything). These two categories completely exhaust the possibilities of human experience, as there is no possible third alternative. Thus, states like waking, dream, mystical, hallucinatory, daydreaming, imaginary, etc, are all states in which one is aware of something, and states like Deep Sleep, Coma, Faint, Nirvikalpa , etc., are all states in which one is not aware of anything. Now the Witnessing Consciousness which is always present, unchanging, and beyond all states.(weather or not something is appearing), and which testifies to their presence and absence, is the Non Dual -True Self of each of us. And to intuit this universal fact of experience is referred to in Advaita Vedanta as attaining the 'Direct Knowledge' of the Self. This Direct Knowledge of the Self can not be had by attaining any new state, be it "Darshana Vriti" or Adarshna Vriti. The reason why Shankara doesn't spend much time in refuting Patanjalis' dualistic Yoga Darshana, or the practice of 'The restraint of all mental modifications' (Chita Vriti Nirodha) which results in Nirvikalpa Samadhi, as a means to know the Self, is because after having completely demolished the dualistic Samkhya Darshana in his Sutra Bhasya, there was no need to separately refute the Patanjali Yogins, or their 'yogic methods' which leads to Nirvikalpa Samadhi, because their metaphysical philosophy was almost the same as the Samkhyas. This is based on the Sutra which states ; 'Thereby Yoga Darshana also stands refuted.' However the doctrine that the attainment of Nirvikalpa Samadhi, or the 'restraint of the mental modifications'( chita Vriti Nirodha), leads to the 'Direct Knowledge' of the self is thoroughly examined and refuted by Shankaras' direct disciple Sureswaracharya in his Brhadaranyaka Vartica, as well as his Sambandha Vartica. I will end this post with a quote from this text as well as the sub-commentary by AanandaGiri. " In states like 'Deep Sleep', etc., even though there are no mental impressions, there is no release; nor in the absence of the of the functioning of the means of valid knowledge in those states does the inner Self manifest itself." Sub. Com.-" By the mere suppression of mental impressions one cannot attain release, There are no mental impressions in sleep; but sleep is not release. It cannot be said that there are mental impressions in sleep, for if that were so sleep would not be sleep. If it be urged that in sleep the mental impressions remain in the form of their cause, via. Ignorance, then it is only the removal of that cause that would lead to release. And the removal of Ignorance is possible only through Knowledge. As for what was said, that even without the functioning of the 'means of knowledge' (pramanas), the Self shines when the mental impressions are removed, we have to make this observation; THAT WITHOUT PRAMANA (A MEANS OF KNOWLEDGE) THE SELF-MANIFESTATION OF THE SELF CANNOT BE KNOWN." Sambhanda Vartica 463-464a. Om Tat Sat Atmachaitanya advaitin, K Kathirasan NCS <kkathir@n...> wrote: > Namaste Viswanathanji, > > Please see my comments below (my previous reply snipped): > > > I consider Nirvikalpa Samadhi being an experience, which happens only when > > the limited self completely drops and in that experience the luminous Self > > is revealed. To make sense out of that experience one has to go to > > Scriptures or Guru's like Ramana, which or who help acquire the knowledge. > > The objectification of Self occurs only in the normal ignorant state and > > not > > during Nirvikalpa Samadhi, since the "I" dissolves into the Self. In the > > normal state to which one returns after Nirvikalpa Samadhi, that > > experience > > may still be objectified if there is lack of true knowledge from > > Scriptures > > and real Guru's (There may be visible exceptions to this in cases such as > > Ramana). On the other hand, if the person continues to reside in the > > Nirvikalpa Samadhi state, the objectification vanishes completely even > > during the three known states, viz., i.e. waking, dreaming & deep sleep. > > Many times the true Guru's and Saints, although residing in Nirvikalpa > > Samadhi all the time, may talk to the visitors, questioners, and > > disciples, > > as though it is objectified. > > > > > KK: May I know what is this limited self which completely drops? If you are > referring to the body-mind-sense complex, then I can agree with you sir. But > what we say is that the Self is always revealing itself as > Awareness/Consciousness in the 3 states of experience. Therefore, there is > no need for a Samadhi experience to reveal the Atma. Shastra pramana and > shraddha are enough. It sounds impossible for anyone to reside in the > Nirvikalpa Samadhi all the time (if we consider it to be a mindless state), > because we can't account for his transactions with the world without a mind. > But it can be a possibility if we take that Nirvikalpa state as a state > where there are no erroneous notions about oneself, in other words the > absence of identification with body-sense-mind complex. Then it will make > alot of sense. > > > > That knowing "I am Atma" is more than the knowledge gained from books and > > teachers. The knowing, in my parlance, needs in addition the experience, > > which exists only for the normal ignorant state. Knowing and being > > established in "I am Atma" are both descriptions of experiences with > > reference to the ignorant normal state. In that established state the > > knowledge itself vanishes; just the being exists. Such a being is > > liberated. > > This may be semantics for some and not acceptable for purists, who believe > > knowledge is the only source for liberation. > > > > > KK: From what I learnt, the mahavakya 'Tat Tvam Asi' (not Samadhi) is enough > to liberate the Jiva provided he/she has the necessary qualifications such > as Shama, Dama, mumukshutvam etc.... > > > The point raised above may be much more controversial! My belief is that > > the > > Nirvikalpa Samadhi experience in itself provides an open window for the > > true > > knowledge that Atma is the Satchitananda swarupam, which can occur through > > Grace, since the ignorance is removed. > > > > > KK: Sir, the above is very speculative and most of it all it mystifies > Vedanta thereby making it non-communicable wisdom. > > > > Lord Krishna is teaching Arjuna who is the normal ignorant and confused > > person in the battle field, similar to most humans in their normal state > > of > > day-to-day existence. Arjuna was there in the battle field to correct the > > wrongs done to the Pandavas and he had to perform his dharmic duty as a > > Kshatrya. Lord Krishna had to educate Arjuna on his dharmic duty. If, on > > the > > other hand, Lord Krishna had given Arjuna a taste of Nirvikalpa Samadhi at > > that time, on returning back to the normal ignorant state Arjuna would > > have > > been a total wreck with enormous confusion and would have failed to > > perform > > his dharmic duty. > > > KK: This proves that Nirvikalpa Samadhi cannot remove the ignorant person's > confusion and problems, thereby making a person a total wreck. Swami > Chinmayanandaji once said that moksha is NOT 'Freedon from action' BUT > 'Freedon in action'. I think his statement truly the Vedantic concept of > moksha. It views a mukta as not a total wreck but a person who engages in > the world yet knowing himself to be free from it. So if Nirvikalpa Samadhi > makes a person a total wreck with enormous confusion, it can never be a > worthy accomplishment. Moreover you mentioned that the Samadhi experience > 'opens a window for the true knowledge that Atma is the Satchitananda > swarupam, which can occur through Grace, since the ignorance is removed'. So > where is the place for confusion when ignorance is removed and can a person > be a total wreck after knowing oneself to be Satchitananda? > > > Also for normal ignorant humans suddenly jumping into Nirvikalpa Samadhi > > (even if it is possible) may be disasterous, if some knowing had not > > occurred earlier in this or earlier life. This is where the Scriptures and > > real Guru's are of great help, since they can help trigger the forgotten > > knowledge or knowing. Often times, in such cases, reading Scriptures and > > listening to teachers provide a basis to gain true knowledge by oneself. > > Sorry. Once again my response is wordy. Hopefully it is clear enough. > > > KK: This will be my last post on this topic. Perhaps other members can > contribute. I would like to thank everyone for their patience with my > rattlings and apologies if it has taken too much of your time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 27, 2001 Report Share Posted December 27, 2001 The goal is to attain Self-Realization by whatever means available and natural to one. Study of scriptures and hearing of the words of the Guru is not incompatible with meditation, contemplation, and self- inquiry. Sages and scriptures declare that Self-Knowledge is revealed to a calm and peaceful mind surrendered to the feet of the Lord or the Guru who stands for the Lord in human form and whose very words carry the essence of Truth and the full force of scriptures. What is so difficult about understanding all this? Leaving aside the notion of Nirvikalpa, Savikalpa, Sahaj and so on, one can reflect on one's current state and where one is. Since the Upanishads declare that only Self Is, one must Recognize the Self in the present moment in one's own Being. If that is done, it is more than enough. One need not be anxious about demonstrating that there is only one valid way to Realize the Self and that certain words or concepts like Nirvikalpa are inherently flawed. Even in Bhagavad Gita, Sri Krishna mentions several paths. If the Lord Himself is flexible, there is no requirement on us to be rigid in our views. Love to all Harsha advaitin, "atmachaitanya108" <stadri@a...> wrote: > Dear K Kathirasan NCS, > > It is evident from the trend of your recent posts, that > you are really trying to determine the value of Nirvikalpa Samadhi > for the attainment of the Knowledge of the Self. There are two popular > views which many posters participating in this discussion seem to be > upholding: 1) 'The Upanishadic teaching can only yield 'Indirect > Knowledge' of the Self, and for the 'Direct knowledge' of the Self, > Nirvikalpa Samadhi is absolutely necessary.' -or- 2) 'While it may be > the case that some aspirants can get the 'Direct Knowledge' of the > Self merely from the Upanishadic teaching, nevertheless, others can > get that same 'Direct Knowledge' of the Self from Nirvikalpa Samadhi > independent of the Upanishadic teachings. > > I will attempt to show that both these views are totally > wrong, and that Nirvikalpa Samadhi is not only UTTERLY USELESS for > the attainment of the 'Direct Knowledge' of the Self, but that it has > many potential defects, perhaps the most common being the 'Spiritual > Arrogance' that is often produced in those who claim to have attained > such an 'exalted' state (i.e.:" I had Nirvikalpa Samadhi and you have > not.". " I now have the 'Direct Knowledge' of the Self, because I > attained Nirvikalpa, and others who have not attained Nirvikalpa can > not have the 'Direct Knowledge' of the Self.I was in Nirvikalpa for > three days, and you were in Nirvkalpa for only three minutes.". "My > Guru was in Nirvikalpa for three weeks!". and other such egotistical > nonsense.) And in addition I will try to demonstrate that,( in spite > of any declarations made to the contrary by modern day Advaita > teachers, be it Ramana Maharshi, Swami Chinmayananda, Swami > Vivekanada, Kanchi Shankaracarya, or anyone else who you care to cite > as an 'authority') the teaching that the attainment of Nirvikalpa > Samadhi is either, 'the ONLY means for the attainment of the 'Direct > Knowledge' of the Self', or, 'that it is merely ONE OF THE MEANS for > the attainment of the 'Direct Knowledge' of the Self', goes against > the Vedantic Scriptures, Sri Shankaras' and Sureswaras' commentaries, > Reason , and Experience (Sruti,Yukti Anubhava Virudhaha)!! > > > Let us begin by examining exactly what this state of Nirvikalpa > Samadhi can and cannot be. The word Nirvikalpa literally means > 'without thought' or 'without imagination', however, in a more general > sense, it can be described as a state in which all distinctions have > subsided. This includes not only the distinctions of the 'mind' and > the 'senses' but also of 'time' and 'space', as well as. the absence > of the Subject and the Object, the absence of an Experiencer and the > Experienced, the absence of the Agent and his Action, the absence of a > Knower and the thing Known. In short it refers to a state in which the > awareness of any duality has ceased. Now I ask you, as you yourself > have asked, "How is it possible for a person to know the Self to be > Satchitananda Svarupam (of the nature of Absolute Existence, Absolute > Consciousness, Absolute Bliss) in the state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi?" He > cannot! In that state he can't know himself to be the Self, an > individual, or a broomstick. If he "knows:" anything, "realizes" > anything, experiences anything, he is by definition not in the state > of Nirvikalpa Samadhi. To think otherwise commits one to the dogma > that Knowledge can arise even in the absence of a 'means of > knowledge'. In this state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi there is no > functioning of the senses or the mind or the Upanishadic teaching, how > can the knowledge of anything arise? > > There are some who would counter these objections by admitting > that while there are no 'means of knowledge' functioning in the state > of Nirvikalpa Samadhi, and therefore the 'knowledge of the Self does > not arise in that state, nevertheless, when one comes out of that > state he is able to recollect his experience of the 'absence of all > duality' or to put it in other words, to recollect his 'experience of > Non Duality' and this is what is indicated by saying that he has > attained the 'Direct Knowledge' of the Self, or that Nirvikalpa > Samadhi is the 'means' of Knowing the Self. But this argument cannot > be accepted, for if it were true that merely by attaining a state in > which 'the awareness of all duality has ceased' or one in which 'Non > Duality alone obtained' one could then come to Know the Self, then it > must be specified why it is the case that in other states in which the > experience of duality has totally ceased, such as faint, coma, deep > sleep, etc, the knowledge of the Self does not arise. No one ever > assumes that merely because he fainted, was in a coma, or fell into > deep sleep, and thereby was not aware of any duality, of any Subject > or Object, of any world or an experiencer of that world, that the > dualistic world was not then existing during those states, or that the > dualistic world doesn't exit or that it is not real. In the same way, > no one can claim to' know' that 'the world of duality' which was > appearing before the state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi and which then ceased > to appear during the state of Nirvilapa Samadhi, and which made its > appearance again after the state of Nirvikalpa, was not existing > during that state, nor that it doesn't exist ,nor that its not real, > merely because he was not aware of it during his temporary state of > Nirvikalpa Samadhi. (And this is exactly what Patanjali himself > concluded after attaining his Nirvikalpa Samadhi, I.E: that in fact > the 'world of duality' does exit, even during the state of Nirvikalpa, > but, he conjectured, that by attaining the Nirvikalpa state, one could > come to realize that the Self is eternally free from and unattached to > the 'real world of duality'). > > But this contradicts the 'Direct Knowledge' of > the Self as expounded in the Upanishads, For the Self of the > Upanishads is Non Dual, There is no second thing called the 'world of > duality' which can be said to exist or to be real. In fact, even the > so called multiplicity of states called waking, dream, deep sleep, > fainting ,coma ,Nirvikalpa, hypnotic, mystical. hallucinatory, etc., > are all temporary, all changing, and ultimately all false. They are in > truth nothing but the Self misconceived, and this Direct Knowledge > comes only from the Upanishadic teaching and not from the attainment > of any new 'state'. Attaining a new state is not a means (pramana) to > know the Self. He who thinks that he is attaining different states is > not a knower the Self, the Upanishada Purusha, the Self which is > exclusively taught by the Upanishads, and which is Unchanging, whose > eternal nature is Nirvikalpa and who is beyond all time and space and > so beyond all transitory 'states'. > > At this point, it is easy to imagine how all the supporters of > Nirvikalpa Samadhi are ready to point out the Himalayan blunder that > I have committed. The unforgivable error of having equated the sublime > state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi, in which one is "Totally Conscious", and > which is very hard to attain, and which the great Sages of the past > and present have described with the highest acumens,-- with the common > state of Deep Sleep, in which one is "Totally Unconscious" and > "Ignorant of his true Self", and which is attained by all and sundry > without any effort whatsoever! Yet this identification is no personal > blunder of my own, for this same identification has been made by > the Upanishads and Sri Shankara himself: > "Just as in Deep Sleep and Samadhi, though there is a > natural eradication of all distinctions"….(Here Shankara clearly > identifies both states, as states in which one is no longer aware of > any duality).". But, because there is the persistence of Ignorance > (in both these states)"…(Here Shankara indicates that by attaining > either Deep Sleep or Samadhi, Ignorace is not de stroyed)…"duality once > again makes it appearance"…But for the Muktas, duality does not > appear again, FOR IN THEIR CASE (unlike those who have merely gone to > Deep Sleep or attained Samadhi) Ignorance has been destroyed by > Knowledge (obtained from the teachings of the Scripture and Guru.)" > Sutra bashya 2-1-9 > > > And while it can be admitted that > there are differences to be noted with regards to how one may enter > into the state of Nivikalpa Samadhi, as opposed to the state of Deep > Sleep, as well as to the differences that obtain after one comes out > of Nirvikalpa Samadhi, as opposed to how one comes out of Deep Sleep, > nevertheless, the 'experience' in both these states MUST be identical, > For if there were any distinctions in one state that was not > obtaining in the other, then that very 'distinction' would disqualifiy > it for belonging to a state in which all distinctions have ceased, be > it Nirvkalpa Samadhi or Deep Sleep. If it is asserted that in > Nirvikalpa state one is aware of an 'Infinite Bliss', an > 'Inconceivable Peace', a' Non-Dual Self' or any other thing that does > not appear in Deep Sleep, then you have given up the position that the > Nirvikalpa state is really Nirvikalpa , for the experience of anything > requires the minimum duality of an experiencer and the thing that he > is experiencing, be it Bliss, Peace or Non Duality. Actually, the > cause of this confusion can be laid at the feet of those champions of > Nirvikalpa Samadhi who look upon Deep Sleep as merely a state of > unconsciousness, disregarding or misinterpreting what the Vedantic > Scriptures, as well as what Shankaras' commentaries have to say about > it.: > > To begin with, while it is true that the common man takes > himself to be 'Ignorant ' or 'Unconscious' in the state of Deep Sleep, > the Sruti presents us with another veiwpont-the viewpoint of the > actual experience of Deep sleep. From this standpoint the Sruti > describes Deep Sleep as follows: > > "That (state of Deep Sleep) is his form-beyond desires, free > from evils and fearless. As a man fully embraced by his beloved wife, > does not know anything at all, either internal or external, so does > the individual self, fully embraced by the Supreme Self, not know > anything at all, either internal or external. That is His form-in > which all objects of desire have been attained, all desires are the > Self, and which is free from desire and devoid of Grief" > Brhadaranyaka .4-3-21 > > (In his commentary on this verse Shankara clearly explains > that the reason one does not know the Self in Deep Sleep, or anything > else, is not because one is then Unconscious or Ignorant, but because > of Unity , because he is then the Non Dual Self alone.) > > "In this state a father is no father, a mother no mother, > worlds no worlds, the gods no gods, the Vedas no Vedas. In this state, > a thief is no thief, the killer of a noble Brahmana no killer, an > outcast no outcaste, …a monk no monk, a hermit no hermit. This form of > His is untouched by good work and untouched by evil work, for He is > then beyond all the woes of the heart.That he does not see in that > state is (NOT BECAUSE HE IS IGNORANT OR UNCONSCIOUS BUT) because, > THOUGH SEEING THEN, he does not see; for the vision of the witness can > never be lost, because it is IMPERISHABLE. But there is not that > second thing separate from it which it could see." Brhad. Upa. > 4-3-22,23 > > "….Where for that sleeping one, he doesn't desire any > desirable thing, nor does he see any Dream, that is the state of Deep > Sleep." (Brhadaranyaka 4-3-19,) > > Here 'Deep Sleep' actually means one's own true nature of > being bereft of the duality that appears in both Waking and Dream. > Because Waking and Dream states are false appearances, it is only from > the point of view of the waking state that one imagines that Deep > Sleep is a state of Unconsciousness or Ignorance. In other words we > have superimposed the concept of Deep Sleep on the Real Self from the > biased viewpoint of the Waking state. But because in truth, so called > 'Deep Sleep' is our true nature, and since ones own true nature can > never be given up, how we were in Deep Sleep is exactly how we are > right now. But because of ignorance we have identified with the > adjuncts that are appearing in waking and dream and from that > perspective only it is said that one 'attains his own true nature in > Deep Sleep( Svapati=He Sleeps= Sva (His own Self) Apati(He enters) As > Shankara puts it: > > "Besides there is no time when the individual has not > become one with the Absolute Brahman, for one's intrinsic nature can > never disappear. It is only relative to the 'seeming' foreign aspect > which he assumes in dream and waking, owing to the contact of > conditioning associates, that it is now being said that he attain his > 'true nature' from the dissolution of that foreign aspect(in Deep > Sleep)." Sutra Bhasya 3-2-7 > > " When the two adjuncts of waking and dream disappear, > THEN THE SELF REMAINS IN HIS TRUE NATURE IN DEEP SLEEP. It is then > said that 'he merges as if' (praleena iva ) in Deep Sleep." Sutra > Bhasya 1-1-9 > > In other words, from the standpoint of the direct experience of > 'Deep Sleep', it is only the Pure Self, Pure Being, Pure Consciousness > and Pure Bliss. (I refer all those interest in this subject i.e. that > in the state of Deep Sleep one is in fact remaining in his own true > nature of Eternal Consciousness to see what Shankara has to say in his > Brhidaranyaka Bhasaya(4-3-21 to 4-3-32) ). > > Thus, just like in Nivikalpa Samadhi whereby one "becomes" one > with the Non Dual Self, so also in Deep Sleep one "becomes' one with > the Non Dual Self. But in both these states there is no knowledge of > this fact. And therefore this knowledge has to be attained in the > waking state where there obtains the distinctions of Guru and Shastra > etc. > > Shankara has given us a comprehensive view of the totality of > human experiences by viewing ALL STATES of experience as falling into > one of two categories. 'Darshana Vriti' (a state in which one is aware > of something) and 'Adarshana Vriti (a state in which one is not aware > of anything). These two categories completely exhaust the > possibilities of human experience, as there is no possible third > alternative. Thus, states like waking, dream, mystical, hallucinatory, > daydreaming, imaginary, etc, are all states in which one is aware of > something, and states like Deep Sleep, Coma, Faint, Nirvikalpa , etc., > are all states in which one is not aware of anything. Now the > Witnessing Consciousness which is always present, unchanging, and > beyond all states.(weather or not something is appearing), and which > testifies to their presence and absence, is the Non Dual -True Self of > each of us. And to intuit this universal fact of experience is > referred to in Advaita Vedanta as attaining the 'Direct Knowledge' of > the Self. This Direct Knowledge of the Self can not be had by > attaining any new state, be it "Darshana Vriti" or Adarshna Vriti. > > The reason why Shankara doesn't spend much time in refuting > Patanjalis' dualistic Yoga Darshana, or the practice of 'The restraint > of all mental modifications' (Chita Vriti Nirodha) which results in > Nirvikalpa Samadhi, as a means to know the Self, is because after > having completely demolished the dualistic Samkhya Darshana in his > Sutra Bhasya, there was no need to separately refute the Patanjali > Yogins, or their 'yogic methods' which leads to Nirvikalpa Samadhi, > because their metaphysical philosophy was almost the same as the > Samkhyas. This is based on the Sutra which states ; 'Thereby Yoga > Darshana also stands refuted.' However the doctrine that the > attainment of Nirvikalpa Samadhi, or the 'restraint of the mental > modifications'( chita Vriti Nirodha), leads to the 'Direct Knowledge' > of the self is thoroughly examined and refuted by Shankaras' direct > disciple Sureswaracharya in his Brhadaranyaka Vartica, as well as his > Sambandha Vartica. I will end this post with a quote from this text as > well as the sub-commentary by AanandaGiri. > > " In states like 'Deep Sleep', etc., even though > there are no mental impressions, there is no release; nor in the > absence of the of the functioning of the means of valid knowledge in > those states does the inner Self manifest itself." Sub. Com.-" By the > mere suppression of mental impressions one cannot attain release, > There are no mental impressions in sleep; but sleep is not release. It > cannot be said that there are mental impressions in sleep, for if that > were so sleep would not be sleep. If it be urged that in sleep the > mental impressions remain in the form of their cause, via. Ignorance, > then it is only the removal of that cause that would lead to > release. And the removal of Ignorance is possible only through > Knowledge. As for what was said, that even without the functioning of > the 'means of knowledge' (pramanas), the Self shines when the mental > impressions are removed, we have to make this observation; THAT > WITHOUT PRAMANA (A MEANS OF KNOWLEDGE) THE SELF-MANIFESTATION OF THE > SELF CANNOT BE KNOWN." Sambhanda Vartica 463-464a. > > Om Tat Sat > Atmachaitanya > > > > > > advaitin, K Kathirasan NCS <kkathir@n...> wrote: > > Namaste Viswanathanji, > > > > Please see my comments below (my previous reply snipped): > > > > > I consider Nirvikalpa Samadhi being an experience, which happens > only when > > > the limited self completely drops and in that experience the > luminous Self > > > is revealed. To make sense out of that experience one has to go to > > > Scriptures or Guru's like Ramana, which or who help acquire the > knowledge. > > > The objectification of Self occurs only in the normal ignorant > state and > > > not > > > during Nirvikalpa Samadhi, since the "I" dissolves into the Self. > In the > > > normal state to which one returns after Nirvikalpa Samadhi, that > > > experience > > > may still be objectified if there is lack of true knowledge from > > > Scriptures > > > and real Guru's (There may be visible exceptions to this in cases > such as > > > Ramana). On the other hand, if the person continues to reside in > the > > > Nirvikalpa Samadhi state, the objectification vanishes completely > even > > > during the three known states, viz., i.e. waking, dreaming & deep > sleep. > > > Many times the true Guru's and Saints, although residing in > Nirvikalpa > > > Samadhi all the time, may talk to the visitors, questioners, and > > > disciples, > > > as though it is objectified. > > > > > > > > KK: May I know what is this limited self which completely drops? If > you are > > referring to the body-mind-sense complex, then I can agree with you > sir. But > > what we say is that the Self is always revealing itself as > > Awareness/Consciousness in the 3 states of experience. Therefore, > there is > > no need for a Samadhi experience to reveal the Atma. Shastra > pramana and > > shraddha are enough. It sounds impossible for anyone to reside in > the > > Nirvikalpa Samadhi all the time (if we consider it to be a mindless > state), > > because we can't account for his transactions with the world without > a mind. > > But it can be a possibility if we take that Nirvikalpa state as a > state > > where there are no erroneous notions about oneself, in other words > the > > absence of identification with body-sense-mind complex. Then it > will make > > alot of sense. > > > > > > > That knowing "I am Atma" is more than the knowledge gained from > books and > > > teachers. The knowing, in my parlance, needs in addition the > experience, > > > which exists only for the normal ignorant state. Knowing and being > > > established in "I am Atma" are both descriptions of experiences > with > > > reference to the ignorant normal state. In that established state > the > > > knowledge itself vanishes; just the being exists. Such a being is > > > liberated. > > > This may be semantics for some and not acceptable for purists, who > believe > > > knowledge is the only source for liberation. > > > > > > > > KK: From what I learnt, the mahavakya 'Tat Tvam Asi' (not Samadhi) > is enough > > to liberate the Jiva provided he/she has the necessary > qualifications such > > as Shama, Dama, mumukshutvam etc.... > > > > > The point raised above may be much more controversial! My belief > is that > > > the > > > Nirvikalpa Samadhi experience in itself provides an open window > for the > > > true > > > knowledge that Atma is the Satchitananda swarupam, which can occur > through > > > Grace, since the ignorance is removed. > > > > > > > > KK: Sir, the above is very speculative and most of it all it > mystifies > > Vedanta thereby making it non-communicable wisdom. > > > > > > > Lord Krishna is teaching Arjuna who is the normal ignorant and > confused > > > person in the battle field, similar to most humans in their normal > state > > > of > > > day-to-day existence. Arjuna was there in the battle field to > correct the > > > wrongs done to the Pandavas and he had to perform his dharmic duty > as a > > > Kshatrya. Lord Krishna had to educate Arjuna on his dharmic duty. > If, on > > > the > > > other hand, Lord Krishna had given Arjuna a taste of Nirvikalpa > Samadhi at > > > that time, on returning back to the normal ignorant state Arjuna > would > > > have > > > been a total wreck with enormous confusion and would have failed > to > > > perform > > > his dharmic duty. > > > > > KK: This proves that Nirvikalpa Samadhi cannot remove the ignorant > person's > > confusion and problems, thereby making a person a total wreck. > Swami > > Chinmayanandaji once said that moksha is NOT 'Freedon from action' > BUT > > 'Freedon in action'. I think his statement truly the Vedantic > concept of > > moksha. It views a mukta as not a total wreck but a person who > engages in > > the world yet knowing himself to be free from it. So if Nirvikalpa > Samadhi > > makes a person a total wreck with enormous confusion, it can never > be a > > worthy accomplishment. Moreover you mentioned that the Samadhi > experience > > 'opens a window for the true knowledge that Atma is the > Satchitananda > > swarupam, which can occur through Grace, since the ignorance is > removed'. So > > where is the place for confusion when ignorance is removed and can a > person > > be a total wreck after knowing oneself to be Satchitananda? > > > > > Also for normal ignorant humans suddenly jumping into Nirvikalpa > Samadhi > > > (even if it is possible) may be disasterous, if some knowing had > not > > > occurred earlier in this or earlier life. This is where the > Scriptures and > > > real Guru's are of great help, since they can help trigger the > forgotten > > > knowledge or knowing. Often times, in such cases, reading > Scriptures and > > > listening to teachers provide a basis to gain true knowledge by > oneself. > > > Sorry. Once again my response is wordy. Hopefully it is clear > enough. > > > > > KK: This will be my last post on this topic. Perhaps other members > can > > contribute. I would like to thank everyone for their patience with > my > > rattlings and apologies if it has taken too much of your time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 27, 2001 Report Share Posted December 27, 2001 Dear Sri Harsha, I am sorry that you think that my views are 'rigid' because I will not accept the dogma that the attainment of Nirvikalpa Samadhi can directly result in the 'Direct Knowledge of the Self. However when you state that " The goal is to attain Self-Realization by whatever means....Even in the Bhagavad Gita, Sri Krishna mentions several paths, if the Lord himself is flexible, there is no requirement for us to be rigid in our views", you obviouly have accepted the viewpoint that there are many ways that lead to the 'Direct Knowledge of the Self, or 'Self Realization'. ( A view made popular by Swami Vivekanada and his desciples whereby Karma Yoga, Bhakti Yoga, Raga Yoga, and Jnana Yoga, are made out as four different paths, each one independently capable of leading the seeker to 'Self Realization'.and depending on ones inclinations, or capacities or 'nature' one could choose anyone of these paths, as they all lead to the same Truth!) But I respectfully submit to you that this notion is false, and that according to the Upanishads, Gita and Param Atma Sri Krishna, Shankaracharya, Reason and Experience, the only means for removing the Ignorance that I am an embodied being, is the 'Direct Knowledge of the Self', or 'Self Realization',and this Knnowledge only comes from the teaching of the Vedantic Scriptures (Shabda Jnana. Vakya Jnana, Shastra Janita Jnana etc,) and not directly from 'Karma Yoga' Bhakti Yoga' 'Raja Yoga' Self Inquiry of asking the question Who am I?,nor from athe attainment of Nirvkalpa Samadhi, nor from the complete surrender to the Lord' Om Tat Sat Atmachaitanya -A-- In advaitin, "harshaimtm" <harsha-hkl@h...> wrote: > The goal is to attain Self-Realization by whatever means available > and natural to one. Study of scriptures and hearing of the words of > the Guru is not incompatible with meditation, contemplation, and self- > inquiry. Sages and scriptures declare that Self-Knowledge is revealed > to a calm and peaceful mind surrendered to the feet of the Lord or > the Guru who stands for the Lord in human form and whose very words > carry the essence of Truth and the full force of scriptures. > > What is so difficult about understanding all this? > > Leaving aside the notion of Nirvikalpa, Savikalpa, Sahaj and so on, > one can reflect on one's current state and where one is. Since the > Upanishads declare that only Self Is, one must Recognize the Self in > the present moment in one's own Being. If that is done, it is more > than enough. One need not be anxious about demonstrating that there > is only one valid way to Realize the Self and that certain words or > concepts like Nirvikalpa are inherently flawed. > > Even in Bhagavad Gita, Sri Krishna mentions several paths. If the > Lord Himself is flexible, there is no requirement on us to be rigid > in our views. > > Love to all > Harsha > > > advaitin, "atmachaitanya108" <stadri@a...> wrote: > > Dear K Kathirasan NCS, > > > > It is evident from the trend of your recent posts, > that > > you are really trying to determine the value of Nirvikalpa Samadhi > > for the attainment of the Knowledge of the Self. There are two > popular > > views which many posters participating in this discussion seem to > be > > upholding: 1) 'The Upanishadic teaching can only yield 'Indirect > > Knowledge' of the Self, and for the 'Direct knowledge' of the Self, > > Nirvikalpa Samadhi is absolutely necessary.' -or- 2) 'While it may > be > > the case that some aspirants can get the 'Direct Knowledge' of the > > Self merely from the Upanishadic teaching, nevertheless, others > can > > get that same 'Direct Knowledge' of the Self from Nirvikalpa > Samadhi > > independent of the Upanishadic teachings. > > > > I will attempt to show that both these views are totally > > wrong, and that Nirvikalpa Samadhi is not only UTTERLY USELESS > for > > the attainment of the 'Direct Knowledge' of the Self, but that it > has > > many potential defects, perhaps the most common being > the 'Spiritual > > Arrogance' that is often produced in those who claim to have > attained > > such an 'exalted' state (i.e.:" I had Nirvikalpa Samadhi and you > have > > not.". " I now have the 'Direct Knowledge' of the Self, because I > > attained Nirvikalpa, and others who have not attained Nirvikalpa > can > > not have the 'Direct Knowledge' of the Self.I was in Nirvikalpa > for > > three days, and you were in Nirvkalpa for only three > minutes.". "My > > Guru was in Nirvikalpa for three weeks!". and other such > egotistical > > nonsense.) And in addition I will try to demonstrate that,( in > spite > > of any declarations made to the contrary by modern day Advaita > > teachers, be it Ramana Maharshi, Swami Chinmayananda, Swami > > Vivekanada, Kanchi Shankaracarya, or anyone else who you care to > cite > > as an 'authority') the teaching that the attainment of Nirvikalpa > > Samadhi is either, 'the ONLY means for the attainment of > the 'Direct > > Knowledge' of the Self', or, 'that it is merely ONE OF THE MEANS > for > > the attainment of the 'Direct Knowledge' of the Self', goes against > > the Vedantic Scriptures, Sri Shankaras' and Sureswaras' > commentaries, > > Reason , and Experience (Sruti,Yukti Anubhava Virudhaha)!! > > > > > > Let us begin by examining exactly what this state of > Nirvikalpa > > Samadhi can and cannot be. The word Nirvikalpa literally means > > 'without thought' or 'without imagination', however, in a more > general > > sense, it can be described as a state in which all distinctions > have > > subsided. This includes not only the distinctions of the 'mind' and > > the 'senses' but also of 'time' and 'space', as well as. the > absence > > of the Subject and the Object, the absence of an Experiencer and > the > > Experienced, the absence of the Agent and his Action, the absence > of a > > Knower and the thing Known. In short it refers to a state in which > the > > awareness of any duality has ceased. Now I ask you, as you yourself > > have asked, "How is it possible for a person to know the Self to be > > Satchitananda Svarupam (of the nature of Absolute Existence, > Absolute > > Consciousness, Absolute Bliss) in the state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi?" > He > > cannot! In that state he can't know himself to be the Self, an > > individual, or a broomstick. If he "knows:" anything, "realizes" > > anything, experiences anything, he is by definition not in the > state > > of Nirvikalpa Samadhi. To think otherwise commits one to the dogma > > that Knowledge can arise even in the absence of a 'means of > > knowledge'. In this state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi there is no > > functioning of the senses or the mind or the Upanishadic teaching, > how > > can the knowledge of anything arise? > > > > There are some who would counter these objections by admitting > > that while there are no 'means of knowledge' functioning in the > state > > of Nirvikalpa Samadhi, and therefore the 'knowledge of the Self > does > > not arise in that state, nevertheless, when one comes out of that > > state he is able to recollect his experience of the 'absence of all > > duality' or to put it in other words, to recollect his 'experience > of > > Non Duality' and this is what is indicated by saying that he has > > attained the 'Direct Knowledge' of the Self, or that Nirvikalpa > > Samadhi is the 'means' of Knowing the Self. But this argument > cannot > > be accepted, for if it were true that merely by attaining a state > in > > which 'the awareness of all duality has ceased' or one in > which 'Non > > Duality alone obtained' one could then come to Know the Self, then > it > > must be specified why it is the case that in other states in which > the > > experience of duality has totally ceased, such as faint, coma, deep > > sleep, etc, the knowledge of the Self does not arise. No one ever > > assumes that merely because he fainted, was in a coma, or fell into > > deep sleep, and thereby was not aware of any duality, of any > Subject > > or Object, of any world or an experiencer of that world, that the > > dualistic world was not then existing during those states, or that > the > > dualistic world doesn't exit or that it is not real. In the same > way, > > no one can claim to' know' that 'the world of duality' which was > > appearing before the state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi and which then > ceased > > to appear during the state of Nirvilapa Samadhi, and which made its > > appearance again after the state of Nirvikalpa, was not existing > > during that state, nor that it doesn't exist ,nor that its not > real, > > merely because he was not aware of it during his temporary state of > > Nirvikalpa Samadhi. (And this is exactly what Patanjali himself > > concluded after attaining his Nirvikalpa Samadhi, I.E: that in fact > > the 'world of duality' does exit, even during the state of > Nirvikalpa, > > but, he conjectured, that by attaining the Nirvikalpa state, one > could > > come to realize that the Self is eternally free from and unattached > to > > the 'real world of duality'). > > > > But this contradicts the 'Direct Knowledge' > of > > the Self as expounded in the Upanishads, For the Self of the > > Upanishads is Non Dual, There is no second thing called the 'world > of > > duality' which can be said to exist or to be real. In fact, even > the > > so called multiplicity of states called waking, dream, deep sleep, > > fainting ,coma ,Nirvikalpa, hypnotic, mystical. hallucinatory, > etc., > > are all temporary, all changing, and ultimately all false. They are > in > > truth nothing but the Self misconceived, and this Direct Knowledge > > comes only from the Upanishadic teaching and not from the > attainment > > of any new 'state'. Attaining a new state is not a means (pramana) > to > > know the Self. He who thinks that he is attaining different states > is > > not a knower the Self, the Upanishada Purusha, the Self which is > > exclusively taught by the Upanishads, and which is Unchanging, > whose > > eternal nature is Nirvikalpa and who is beyond all time and space > and > > so beyond all transitory 'states'. > > > > At this point, it is easy to imagine how all the supporters > of > > Nirvikalpa Samadhi are ready to point out the Himalayan blunder > that > > I have committed. The unforgivable error of having equated the > sublime > > state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi, in which one is "Totally Conscious", > and > > which is very hard to attain, and which the great Sages of the > past > > and present have described with the highest acumens,-- with the > common > > state of Deep Sleep, in which one is "Totally Unconscious" and > > "Ignorant of his true Self", and which is attained by all and > sundry > > without any effort whatsoever! Yet this identification is no > personal > > blunder of my own, for this same identification has been made by > > the Upanishads and Sri Shankara himself: > > "Just as in Deep Sleep and Samadhi, though there > is a > > natural eradication of all distinctions"….(Here Shankara > clearly > > identifies both states, as states in which one is no longer aware > of > > any duality).". But, because there is the persistence of Ignorance > > (in both these states)"…(Here Shankara indicates that by > attaining > > either Deep Sleep or Samadhi, Ignorace is not de > stroyed)…"duality > once > > again makes it appearance"…But for the Muktas, duality does > not > > appear again, FOR IN THEIR CASE (unlike those who have merely gone > to > > Deep Sleep or attained Samadhi) Ignorance has been destroyed by > > Knowledge (obtained from the teachings of the Scripture and Guru.)" > > Sutra bashya 2-1-9 > > > > > > > > And while it can be admitted that > > there are differences to be noted with regards to how one may enter > > into the state of Nivikalpa Samadhi, as opposed to the state of > Deep > > Sleep, as well as to the differences that obtain after one comes > out > > of Nirvikalpa Samadhi, as opposed to how one comes out of Deep > Sleep, > > nevertheless, the 'experience' in both these states MUST be > identical, > > For if there were any distinctions in one state that was not > > obtaining in the other, then that very 'distinction' would > disqualifiy > > it for belonging to a state in which all distinctions have ceased, > be > > it Nirvkalpa Samadhi or Deep Sleep. If it is asserted that in > > Nirvikalpa state one is aware of an 'Infinite Bliss', an > > 'Inconceivable Peace', a' Non-Dual Self' or any other thing that > does > > not appear in Deep Sleep, then you have given up the position that > the > > Nirvikalpa state is really Nirvikalpa , for the experience of > anything > > requires the minimum duality of an experiencer and the thing that > he > > is experiencing, be it Bliss, Peace or Non Duality. Actually, the > > cause of this confusion can be laid at the feet of those champions > of > > Nirvikalpa Samadhi who look upon Deep Sleep as merely a state of > > unconsciousness, disregarding or misinterpreting what the Vedantic > > Scriptures, as well as what Shankaras' commentaries have to say > about > > it.: > > > > To begin with, while it is true that the common man takes > > himself to be 'Ignorant ' or 'Unconscious' in the state of Deep > Sleep, > > the Sruti presents us with another veiwpont-the viewpoint of the > > actual experience of Deep sleep. From this standpoint the Sruti > > describes Deep Sleep as follows: > > > > "That (state of Deep Sleep) is his form-beyond desires, > free > > from evils and fearless. As a man fully embraced by his beloved > wife, > > does not know anything at all, either internal or external, so does > > the individual self, fully embraced by the Supreme Self, not know > > anything at all, either internal or external. That is His form-in > > which all objects of desire have been attained, all desires are the > > Self, and which is free from desire and devoid of Grief" > > Brhadaranyaka .4-3-21 > > > > (In his commentary on this verse Shankara clearly explains > > that the reason one does not know the Self in Deep Sleep, or > anything > > else, is not because one is then Unconscious or Ignorant, but > because > > of Unity , because he is then the Non Dual Self alone.) > > > > "In this state a father is no father, a mother no > mother, > > worlds no worlds, the gods no gods, the Vedas no Vedas. In this > state, > > a thief is no thief, the killer of a noble Brahmana no killer, an > > outcast no outcaste, …a monk no monk, a hermit no hermit. This > form > of > > His is untouched by good work and untouched by evil work, for He is > > then beyond all the woes of the heart.That he does not see in > that > > state is (NOT BECAUSE HE IS IGNORANT OR UNCONSCIOUS BUT) because, > > THOUGH SEEING THEN, he does not see; for the vision of the witness > can > > never be lost, because it is IMPERISHABLE. But there is not that > > second thing separate from it which it could see." Brhad. Upa. > > 4-3-22,23 > > > > "….Where for that sleeping one, he doesn't desire > any > > desirable thing, nor does he see any Dream, that is the state of > Deep > > Sleep." (Brhadaranyaka 4-3-19,) > > > > Here 'Deep Sleep' actually means one's own true nature of > > being bereft of the duality that appears in both Waking and Dream. > > Because Waking and Dream states are false appearances, it is only > from > > the point of view of the waking state that one imagines that Deep > > Sleep is a state of Unconsciousness or Ignorance. In other words we > > have superimposed the concept of Deep Sleep on the Real Self from > the > > biased viewpoint of the Waking state. But because in truth, so > called > > 'Deep Sleep' is our true nature, and since ones own true nature > can > > never be given up, how we were in Deep Sleep is exactly how we are > > right now. But because of ignorance we have identified with the > > adjuncts that are appearing in waking and dream and from that > > perspective only it is said that one 'attains his own true nature > in > > Deep Sleep( Svapati=He Sleeps= Sva (His own Self) Apati(He enters) > As > > Shankara puts it: > > > > "Besides there is no time when the individual has > not > > become one with the Absolute Brahman, for one's intrinsic nature > can > > never disappear. It is only relative to the 'seeming' foreign > aspect > > which he assumes in dream and waking, owing to the contact of > > conditioning associates, that it is now being said that he attain > his > > 'true nature' from the dissolution of that foreign aspect(in Deep > > Sleep)." Sutra Bhasya 3-2-7 > > > > " When the two adjuncts of waking and dream > disappear, > > THEN THE SELF REMAINS IN HIS TRUE NATURE IN DEEP SLEEP. It is > then > > said that 'he merges as if' (praleena iva ) in Deep Sleep." Sutra > > Bhasya 1-1-9 > > > > In other words, from the standpoint of the direct experience of > > 'Deep Sleep', it is only the Pure Self, Pure Being, Pure > Consciousness > > and Pure Bliss. (I refer all those interest in this subject i.e. > that > > in the state of Deep Sleep one is in fact remaining in his own true > > nature of Eternal Consciousness to see what Shankara has to say in > his > > Brhidaranyaka Bhasaya(4-3-21 to 4-3-32) ). > > > > Thus, just like in Nivikalpa Samadhi whereby one "becomes" one > > with the Non Dual Self, so also in Deep Sleep one "becomes' one > with > > the Non Dual Self. But in both these states there is no knowledge > of > > this fact. And therefore this knowledge has to be attained in the > > waking state where there obtains the distinctions of Guru and > Shastra > > etc. > > > > Shankara has given us a comprehensive view of the totality > of > > human experiences by viewing ALL STATES of experience as falling > into > > one of two categories. 'Darshana Vriti' (a state in which one is > aware > > of something) and 'Adarshana Vriti (a state in which one is not > aware > > of anything). These two categories completely exhaust the > > possibilities of human experience, as there is no possible third > > alternative. Thus, states like waking, dream, mystical, > hallucinatory, > > daydreaming, imaginary, etc, are all states in which one is aware > of > > something, and states like Deep Sleep, Coma, Faint, Nirvikalpa , > etc., > > are all states in which one is not aware of anything. Now the > > Witnessing Consciousness which is always present, unchanging, and > > beyond all states.(weather or not something is appearing), and > which > > testifies to their presence and absence, is the Non Dual -True Self > of > > each of us. And to intuit this universal fact of experience is > > referred to in Advaita Vedanta as attaining the 'Direct Knowledge' > of > > the Self. This Direct Knowledge of the Self can not be had by > > attaining any new state, be it "Darshana Vriti" or Adarshna Vriti. > > > > The reason why Shankara doesn't spend much time in refuting > > Patanjalis' dualistic Yoga Darshana, or the practice of 'The > restraint > > of all mental modifications' (Chita Vriti Nirodha) which results in > > Nirvikalpa Samadhi, as a means to know the Self, is because after > > having completely demolished the dualistic Samkhya Darshana in his > > Sutra Bhasya, there was no need to separately refute the Patanjali > > Yogins, or their 'yogic methods' which leads to Nirvikalpa Samadhi, > > because their metaphysical philosophy was almost the same as the > > Samkhyas. This is based on the Sutra which states ; 'Thereby Yoga > > Darshana also stands refuted.' However the doctrine that the > > attainment of Nirvikalpa Samadhi, or the 'restraint of the mental > > modifications'( chita Vriti Nirodha), leads to the 'Direct > Knowledge' > > of the self is thoroughly examined and refuted by Shankaras' direct > > disciple Sureswaracharya in his Brhadaranyaka Vartica, as well as > his > > Sambandha Vartica. I will end this post with a quote from this text > as > > well as the sub-commentary by AanandaGiri. > > > > " In states like 'Deep Sleep', etc., even > though > > there are no mental impressions, there is no release; nor in the > > absence of the of the functioning of the means of valid knowledge > in > > those states does the inner Self manifest itself." Sub. Com.-" By > the > > mere suppression of mental impressions one cannot attain release, > > There are no mental impressions in sleep; but sleep is not release. > It > > cannot be said that there are mental impressions in sleep, for if > that > > were so sleep would not be sleep. If it be urged that in sleep the > > mental impressions remain in the form of their cause, via. > Ignorance, > > then it is only the removal of that cause that would lead to > > release. And the removal of Ignorance is possible only through > > Knowledge. As for what was said, that even without the functioning > of > > the 'means of knowledge' (pramanas), the Self shines when the > mental > > impressions are removed, we have to make this observation; THAT > > WITHOUT PRAMANA (A MEANS OF KNOWLEDGE) THE SELF-MANIFESTATION OF > THE > > SELF CANNOT BE KNOWN." Sambhanda Vartica 463-464a. > > > > Om Tat Sat > > Atmachaitanya > > > > > > > > > > > > advaitin, K Kathirasan NCS <kkathir@n...> wrote: > > > Namaste Viswanathanji, > > > > > > Please see my comments below (my previous reply snipped): > > > > > > > I consider Nirvikalpa Samadhi being an experience, which > happens > > only when > > > > the limited self completely drops and in that experience the > > luminous Self > > > > is revealed. To make sense out of that experience one has to go > to > > > > Scriptures or Guru's like Ramana, which or who help acquire the > > knowledge. > > > > The objectification of Self occurs only in the normal ignorant > > state and > > > > not > > > > during Nirvikalpa Samadhi, since the "I" dissolves into the > Self. > > In the > > > > normal state to which one returns after Nirvikalpa Samadhi, that > > > > experience > > > > may still be objectified if there is lack of true knowledge from > > > > Scriptures > > > > and real Guru's (There may be visible exceptions to this in > cases > > such as > > > > Ramana). On the other hand, if the person continues to reside > in > > the > > > > Nirvikalpa Samadhi state, the objectification vanishes > completely > > even > > > > during the three known states, viz., i.e. waking, dreaming & > deep > > sleep. > > > > Many times the true Guru's and Saints, although residing in > > Nirvikalpa > > > > Samadhi all the time, may talk to the visitors, questioners, and > > > > disciples, > > > > as though it is objectified. > > > > > > > > > > > KK: May I know what is this limited self which completely drops? > If > > you are > > > referring to the body-mind-sense complex, then I can agree with > you > > sir. But > > > what we say is that the Self is always revealing itself as > > > Awareness/Consciousness in the 3 states of experience. > Therefore, > > there is > > > no need for a Samadhi experience to reveal the Atma. Shastra > > pramana and > > > shraddha are enough. It sounds impossible for anyone to reside in > > the > > > Nirvikalpa Samadhi all the time (if we consider it to be a > mindless > > state), > > > because we can't account for his transactions with the world > without > > a mind. > > > But it can be a possibility if we take that Nirvikalpa state as a > > state > > > where there are no erroneous notions about oneself, in other > words > > the > > > absence of identification with body-sense-mind complex. Then it > > will make > > > alot of sense. > > > > > > > > > > That knowing "I am Atma" is more than the knowledge gained from > > books and > > > > teachers. The knowing, in my parlance, needs in addition the > > experience, > > > > which exists only for the normal ignorant state. Knowing and > being > > > > established in "I am Atma" are both descriptions of experiences > > with > > > > reference to the ignorant normal state. In that established > state > > the > > > > knowledge itself vanishes; just the being exists. Such a being > is > > > > liberated. > > > > This may be semantics for some and not acceptable for purists, > who > > believe > > > > knowledge is the only source for liberation. > > > > > > > > > > > KK: From what I learnt, the mahavakya 'Tat Tvam Asi' (not > Samadhi) > > is enough > > > to liberate the Jiva provided he/she has the necessary > > qualifications such > > > as Shama, Dama, mumukshutvam etc.... > > > > > > > The point raised above may be much more controversial! My > belief > > is that > > > > the > > > > Nirvikalpa Samadhi experience in itself provides an open window > > for the > > > > true > > > > knowledge that Atma is the Satchitananda swarupam, which can > occur > > through > > > > Grace, since the ignorance is removed. > > > > > > > > > > > KK: Sir, the above is very speculative and most of it all it > > mystifies > > > Vedanta thereby making it non-communicable wisdom. > > > > > > > > > > Lord Krishna is teaching Arjuna who is the normal ignorant and > > confused > > > > person in the battle field, similar to most humans in their > normal > > state > > > > of > > > > day-to-day existence. Arjuna was there in the battle field to > > correct the > > > > wrongs done to the Pandavas and he had to perform his dharmic > duty > > as a > > > > Kshatrya. Lord Krishna had to educate Arjuna on his dharmic > duty. > > If, on > > > > the > > > > other hand, Lord Krishna had given Arjuna a taste of Nirvikalpa > > Samadhi at > > > > that time, on returning back to the normal ignorant state > Arjuna > > would > > > > have > > > > been a total wreck with enormous confusion and would have > failed > > to > > > > perform > > > > his dharmic duty. > > > > > > > KK: This proves that Nirvikalpa Samadhi cannot remove the > ignorant > > person's > > > confusion and problems, thereby making a person a total wreck. > > Swami > > > Chinmayanandaji once said that moksha is NOT 'Freedon from > action' > > BUT > > > 'Freedon in action'. I think his statement truly the Vedantic > > concept of > > > moksha. It views a mukta as not a total wreck but a person who > > engages in > > > the world yet knowing himself to be free from it. So if > Nirvikalpa > > Samadhi > > > makes a person a total wreck with enormous confusion, it can > never > > be a > > > worthy accomplishment. Moreover you mentioned that the Samadhi > > experience > > > 'opens a window for the true knowledge that Atma is the > > Satchitananda > > > swarupam, which can occur through Grace, since the ignorance is > > removed'. So > > > where is the place for confusion when ignorance is removed and > can a > > person > > > be a total wreck after knowing oneself to be Satchitananda? > > > > > > > Also for normal ignorant humans suddenly jumping into > Nirvikalpa > > Samadhi > > > > (even if it is possible) may be disasterous, if some knowing > had > > not > > > > occurred earlier in this or earlier life. This is where the > > Scriptures and > > > > real Guru's are of great help, since they can help trigger the > > forgotten > > > > knowledge or knowing. Often times, in such cases, reading > > Scriptures and > > > > listening to teachers provide a basis to gain true knowledge by > > oneself. > > > > Sorry. Once again my response is wordy. Hopefully it is clear > > enough. > > > > > > > KK: This will be my last post on this topic. Perhaps other > members > > can > > > contribute. I would like to thank everyone for their patience > with > > my > > > rattlings and apologies if it has taken too much of your time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 28, 2001 Report Share Posted December 28, 2001 Dear Atmachaitanyaji, Namaskarams. I agree with every word that you have written on this topic. People generally identify jnana with some kind of mystic experience. If we say that jnana is the result of pramAaNavyApAra it looks too simplistic to many people who are not exposed to the traditional teaching. Also reading only English Translations of Shastra from books (Modern Vedanta) leads to further confusion. Although many on this list are mumukshus, they still don't appreciate the importance of studying shastra from a traditional Guru who is both srotriya and brahmanishta, which is unfortunate. It is not enough if one is only a mumukshu. The quantum jump from being a mumukshu to jijnasu which involves the recognition of shastra and guruvakya as pramana is very important. One has to understand the pratipAdaka-pratipAdya-sambandha (revealer-revealed relationship) between the shastra and the self and the implications of it very clearly. Also one has to understand that jnana alone is the direct means for Moksha and pramAnavyApAra is the direct means for attaining that jnana and that pramAnavyApAra takes place when the Guru teaches the Upanishad vakyas. Another area of confusion is that people think advaita is achieved only when dvaita is absent. If this is true then dvaita becomes real. If dvaita is real then there is no advaita. So the teaching is not and cannot be 'advaita is there when dvaita is absent'. The teaching is even when I am cognizing the dvaitajagat, advaitam is satyam and that satyam is me, myself. If one does'nt understand this then one thinks one has to achieve a state where is dvaita is absent and gives undue importance to Samadhi. Samadhi is something great as an accomplishment, but that also has to be looked at as a means to prepare oneself to gain this knowledge. If this perspective is lost then Samadhi is taken as an end in itself and then one remains an ignorant person. with love and prayers, Jaishankar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 28, 2001 Report Share Posted December 28, 2001 Dear Atmachaitanya In your long and well written treatise, you have made, I believe, some fundamental errors. Please listen to the wise words of Harsha, for they are well founded in experience of the absolute. I have less, but still recognize that the ultimate guru resides within. Resolutely adhering to the interpreted teachings of a great sage has no innate value. Some of what you state is just plain wrong. For example: > However the doctrine that the attainment of > Nirvikalpa Samadhi, or the 'restraint of the mental > modifications'( chita Vriti Nirodha), leads to the > 'Direct Knowledge' of the self is thoroughly examined > and refuted by Shankaras' direct disciple Sureswaracharya > in his Brhadaranyaka Vartica, as well as his > Sambandha Vartica. Patanjali: 2. Yoga comes from transcending the processes of individual consciousness, 3. then is one absorbed in the essence of the inner witness [the Self]. 4. Otherwise, (we identify) with the form of those processes. So he says that Yoga - Union (advaita) comes from transcending the thought process, leaving pure awareness only. I can tell you from personal experience that this is absolutely accurate and correct. Either Sureswaracharya was misguided or (more likely) has been misinterpreted. "Direct Knowledge" is a phrase that one might use to describe that state of pure awareness - that which exists beyond thoughts. But of course we are using the mundane to describe the subtle. And it is almost impossible to justify or adequately describe to someone else. (As someone else mentioned, one has to take such matters on good faith, until one has had the same experience.) Samadhi is not a state of nothingness like deep sleep, it a state of everythingness. Throw away the books, meditate and know thy Self. Love Brian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 28, 2001 Report Share Posted December 28, 2001 --- Jaishankar Narayanan <srijai wrote: > Dear Atmachaitanyaji, > > Namaskarams. I agree with every word that you have > written on this topic. People generally identify > jnana with some kind of mystic experience. If we > say that jnana is the result of pramAaNavyApAra it > looks too simplistic to many people who are not > exposed to the traditional teaching. Also reading > only English Translations of Shastra from books > (Modern Vedanta) leads to further confusion. > Although many on this list are mumukshus, they still > don't appreciate the importance of studying shastra > from a traditional Guru who is both srotriya and > brahmanishta, which is unfortunate. It is not enough > if one is only a mumukshu. The quantum jump from > being a mumukshu to jijnasu which involves the > recognition of shastra and guruvakya as pramana is > very important. One has to understand the > pratipAdaka-pratipAdya-sambandha (revealer-revealed > relationship) between the shastra and the self and > the implications of it very clearly. Also one has to > understand that jnana alone is the direct means for > Moksha and pramAnavyApAra is the direct means for > attaining that jnana and that pramAnavyApAra takes > place when the Guru teaches the Upanishad vakyas. > Dear Jaishankar Narayanan Ji, Namaste. To be exposed to traditional teaching from a competent Guru is indeed a boon. I am desirious to know, Sir, possible gaps between English-versions and traditional teachings. I know this is an open question, but, maybe you already are aware of some shortcomings. However, please do not feel obliged to answer. > Another area of confusion is that people think > advaita is achieved only when dvaita is absent. If > this is true then dvaita becomes real. If dvaita is > real then there is no advaita. So the teaching is > not and cannot be 'advaita is there when dvaita is > absent'. The teaching is even when I am cognizing > the dvaitajagat, advaitam is satyam and that satyam > is me, myself. If one does'nt understand this then > one thinks one has to achieve a state where is > dvaita is absent and gives undue importance to > Samadhi. Samadhi is something great as an > accomplishment, but that also has to be looked at as > a means to prepare oneself to gain this knowledge. > If this perspective is lost then Samadhi is taken as > an end in itself and then one remains an ignorant > person. > This is truly a beautiful statement, which I would like to summarise: -- Truth of 'tatvamasi' while cognizing dvaita-jagat -- Samadhi as only a tool to know the Truth. Thanks and kind regards, Raghava Send your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 28, 2001 Report Share Posted December 28, 2001 Forwarded Message: Members are advised to send their message directly to the list - email address: advaitin Thanks for your cooperation Advaitin List Moderators > "saddestragaishappyrajaok" > <saddestragaishappyrajaok > advaitin-owner > Re: My thoughts on Samadhi & Advaita > > dear sirs, > > my own reflections reflect an awareness of being > aware. > this goal of lack of knowledge of deep sleep as life > convinced the > person in samadhi, as i am told i am, because dogma > escaped > the cycle of misunderstanding---i.e. nirvkalpa as > reflection > through philosophical awareness. > > All men naturally desire knowledge. An indication of > this is our > esteem for the senses; for apart from their use we > esteem them > for their own sake, and most of all the sense of > sight. Not only > with a view to action, but even when no action is > contemplated, > we prefer sight, generally speaking, to all the > other senses.The > reason of this is that of all the senses sight best > helps us to > know things, and reveals many distinctions. > > Besides the foregoing problems about the first > principles we > must also raise the question whether they are > universal or such > as we describe the particulars to be. For if they > are universal, > there will be no substances; for no common term > denotes an > individual thing, but a type; and substance is an > individual > thing.But if the common predicate be hypostatized as > an > individual thing, Shankara will be several beings: > himself, and > Man, and Animal--that is, if each predicate denotes > one > particular thing.These then are the consequences if > the > principles are universal. If on the other hand they > are not > universal but like particulars, they will not be > knowable; for the > knowledge of everything is universal. Hence there > will have to be > other universally predicated principles prior to the > first principles, > if there is to be any knowledge of them. > > Truth means to think these objects, and there is no > falsity or > deception, but only ignorance--not, however, > ignorance such as > blindness is; for blindness is like a total absence > of the power of > thinking. And it is obvious that with regard to > immovable things > also, if one assumes that there are immovable > things, there is > no deception in respect of time.E.g., if we suppose > that the > triangle is immutable, we shall not suppose that it > sometimes > contains two right angles and sometimes does not, > for this > would imply that it changes; but we may suppose that > one thing > has a certain property and another has not; e.g., > that no even > number is a prime, or that some are primes and > others are not. > But about a single number we cannot be mistaken even > in this > way, for we can no longer suppose that one instance > is of such a > nature, and another not, but whether we are right or > wrong, the > fact is always the same. > > But if, as in the case of the phonetic elements, > there is no > reason why there should not be many A's and B's, and > no "A > itself" or "B itself" apart from these many, then on > this basis there > may be any number of similar syllables. > > atmachaitanya108 is a wise man. self manistation is > unknowable---he proves it as well as shankaraji > himself. > > > Hare OM, Om > > Mr. O. Peshtin > > advaitin, "atmachaitanya108" > <stadri@a...> wrote: > > Dear Sri Harsha, > > > > I am sorry that you think that my views are > 'rigid' because I > > will not accept the dogma that the attainment of > Nirvikalpa > Samadhi > > can directly result in the 'Direct Knowledge of > the Self. However > when > > you state that " The goal is to attain > Self-Realization by > whatever > > means....Even in the Bhagavad Gita, Sri Krishna > mentions > several > > paths, if the Lord himself is flexible, there is > no requirement for > us ===== Tips to Members from the Advaitin List Moderators 1) While replying, avoid repeating the entire message and be brief. 2) Be considerate to your fellow members and focus only on the subject matter. 3) When you are in doubt, contac the moderators at advatins 4) Split long articles into several parts and post them separately. 5) Suggestions/comments can be sent to advaitins 6) Advaitin Webspace: advaitin Send your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 29, 2001 Report Share Posted December 29, 2001 advaitin, "egodust" <egodust@d...> wrote: > hariH OM! > namaste. > > we tend to glorify and "exotify" this [state of] nirvikalpa samadhi. > it simply implies "experience void of thought." Is 'it' an experience Frank? Col Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 29, 2001 Report Share Posted December 29, 2001 advaitin, "atmachaitanya108" <stadri@a...> wrote: > Dear Sri Harsha, > > I am sorry that you think that my views are 'rigid' because I > will not accept the dogma that the attainment of Nirvikalpa Samadhi > can directly result in the 'Direct Knowledge of the Self. However when > you state that " The goal is to attain Self-Realization by whatever > means....Even in the Bhagavad Gita, Sri Krishna mentions several > paths, if the Lord himself is flexible, there is no requirement for us > to be rigid in our views", you obviouly have accepted the viewpoint > that there are many ways that lead to the 'Direct Knowledge of the > Self, or 'Self Realization'. ( A view made popular by Swami > Vivekanada and his desciples whereby Karma Yoga, Bhakti Yoga, Raga > Yoga, and Jnana Yoga, are made out as four different paths, each one > independently capable of leading the seeker to 'Self Realization'.and > depending on ones inclinations, or capacities or 'nature' one could > choose anyone of these paths, as they all lead to the same > Truth!) Hello. I think there is one mistake you are making & that is perhaps presuming that nirvikalpa is 'a doing'. Regards, Colette Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 29, 2001 Report Share Posted December 29, 2001 >K Kathirasan Gosh I think you ask a lot of good questions. You have a very good enquiring mind in my opinion. >As I mentioned earlier, the question to be answered is: 'What happens >in the state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi that makes the experiencer >conclude that Atma is indeed Sat (existence eternal), Chit >> (Consciousness, awareness) and Ananda (Happiness). Everything else is absent. What is left is self aware conscious existence without any distractions. There is no desire, no need in that fullness. "The nature of the essence, of the real self, is existence. The "I" itself is existence .. Essence is not simply the only part of us that is aware of its existence. It is what exists. It is not only what exists, but it is also existence. This existence is not only the nature of man but the nature of everything. It is the unity of all .. A.H. Almaas " advaitin, K Kathirasan NCS <kkathir@n...> wrote: > Namaste Srinivasji, > how can a 'mindless' state like Nirvikalpa Samadhi > remove my self-ignorance? This is my question sir. And I believe that for > knowledge to take place there must be a knower (pramata) and an object to be > known (prameya). If in the Nirvikalpa Samadhi state, the mind is negated > then who is the knower or the seer of the Self? The Knower knows the Self in that state. One needn't conclude that knowledge means a lot of things & concepts. Total Knowledge includes the Knower rather than objectifying outside the Self in conceptual things. In this sense, Knowledge is not only relative but absolute. Usually conceptual knowledge excludes the Self. It is not unitary in it's approach. Col Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 29, 2001 Report Share Posted December 29, 2001 Dear Brian, I can't understand why people who claim to be Advaitins (Non Dualist) have such a strong reluctance to acknowledge the indisputable fact that Patanjalis Yoga Philosopy is dualistic through and through. Duality is True before the attainment of the 'Direct Knowledge' of the Self, and duality is True after the attainment of the 'Direct Knowlege of the Self. Patanjali held that the 'Inner Self'(THE WITNESS) was MANY IN NUMBER: You have your Witness, and I have my Witness, and when one 'Witness' gets freed from his bondage to the 'Real Prakriti', the other real 'Witnesses' remain in Bondage.There is no 'Advaita being taught here at all. (While there is no dispute among scholars of Indian Philosophy as to the veracity of this possition, may I recommend Swami Hariharanands' "Yoga Philosophy of Patanjali", as a work which will provide ample proof for these claims.) "Yoga" for Patanjali may mean 'Union' with the Purusha, but it definately does not mean 'Advaita'. If you want to "throw away your books, and meditate" that is certainly your perogative, But if you want to Know the Non-Dual Self of Vedanta,I suggest you dont give up your study of the Upanishads, for that is the only source of such Knowledge. (NOT NIRVIKALPA SAMADHI!) Hari Om Atma Caitanya advaitin, Brian Milnes <b.milnes@b...> wrote: > Dear Atmachaitanya > > In your long and well written treatise, you have made, I believe, some fundamental errors. Please listen to the wise words of Harsha, for they are well founded in experience of the absolute. > > I have less, but still recognize that the ultimate guru resides within. Resolutely adhering to the interpreted teachings of a great sage has no innate value. Some of what you state is just plain wrong. For example: > > > However the doctrine that the attainment of > > Nirvikalpa Samadhi, or the 'restraint of the mental > > modifications'( chita Vriti Nirodha), leads to the > > 'Direct Knowledge' of the self is thoroughly examined > > and refuted by Shankaras' direct disciple Sureswaracharya > > in his Brhadaranyaka Vartica, as well as his > > Sambandha Vartica. > > Patanjali: > 2. Yoga comes from transcending the processes of individual > consciousness, > 3. then is one absorbed in the essence of the inner witness [the Self]. > 4. Otherwise, (we identify) with the form of those processes. > > So he says that Yoga - Union (advaita) comes from transcending the thought process, leaving pure awareness only. I can tell you from personal experience that this is absolutely accurate and correct. Either Sureswaracharya was misguided or (more likely) has been misinterpreted. > > "Direct Knowledge" is a phrase that one might use to describe that state of pure awareness - that which exists beyond thoughts. But of course we are using the mundane to describe the subtle. And it is almost impossible to justify or adequately describe to someone else. (As someone else mentioned, one has to take such matters on good faith, until one has had the same experience.) > > Samadhi is not a state of nothingness like deep sleep, it a state of everythingness. > > Throw away the books, meditate and know thy Self. > > Love > > Brian > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 29, 2001 Report Share Posted December 29, 2001 Namaste AtmaChaitanyaji, I have a basic question. Is'nt all this knowledge from books(Whether they be Upanishads or Brahmasutras) also in the plane of maya? After all it is you who read them. It is you who understand them. All understanding of books is dependent on your state of mind. Unless you know who you are in truth, all your understanding is conditioned by the mind. Therefore no amount of book reading can give you knowledge. All it can give you is directions for sadhana. Anand > If you want to "throw away your books, and > meditate" that is > certainly your perogative, But if you want to Know > the Non-Dual Self > of Vedanta,I suggest you dont give up your study of > the Upanishads, > for that is the only source of such Knowledge. (NOT > NIRVIKALPA > SAMADHI!) > > Hari Om > Atma Caitanya > Send your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 29, 2001 Report Share Posted December 29, 2001 Hari Om !! Patanjali's conclusion is that the Maya will continue to play for others, and not for the one who attained the Direct Knowledge. This does not mean "Duality" or Otherwise. It does not say that the Gross Physical world perceived by others will vanish for the realized man as well as others. Otherwise do you expect ALL to realize because one holy sage has attained REALIZATION ? That is why it is called DIRECT KNOWLEDGE. I guess, the words are being quoted out of context. If the word "ADVAITA" is GROSS, including in our perception, why do we need the word "ADVAITA" at all ? Advaita is a philosophical nomenclature, to define that the underlying SUBSTRATUM is ONE i.e in all forms and names. Know that to be ANY one's own nature. Identify with it and be free from bondage. So, who ever can do that will be released from bondage. After all the Advaitic conclusion is that the universe is an illusory superimposition on Brahman. All of us are deluded equally. Just as the dreamer and all other actors of the dream see the same dream world (ex: one moon, sun etc.), we all see this common illusory- waking-world in our illusory-waking-state. No body is intent on throwing away the books, but books are teaching us that at the end one has to meditate and realize for his own self. I wanted to ask you even before this e-mail, the follwing question: What is your explanation on a) the goal b) the process and method to get there. c) preparation d)journey e) pitfalls f) milestones g) what remains Instead of theory or quotaions from scriptures, please give a bulleted list. After all any prescrition for Life should be simple and practicable for all. Om Namo Narayanaya !! Srikrishna advaitin, "atmachaitanya108" <stadri@a...> wrote: > Dear Brian, > I can't understand why people who claim to be Advaitins (Non > Dualist) have such a strong reluctance to acknowledge the > indisputable fact that Patanjalis Yoga Philosopy is dualistic through > and through. Duality is True before the attainment of the 'Direct > Knowledge' of the Self, and duality is True after the attainment of > the 'Direct Knowlege of the Self. Patanjali held that the 'Inner > Self'(THE WITNESS) was MANY IN NUMBER: You have your Witness, and I > have my Witness, and when one 'Witness' gets freed from his bondage to > the 'Real Prakriti', the other real 'Witnesses' remain in > Bondage.There is no 'Advaita being taught here at all. (While there is > no dispute among scholars of Indian Philosophy as to the veracity of > this possition, may I recommend Swami Hariharanands' "Yoga Philosophy > of Patanjali", as a work which will provide ample proof for these > claims.) "Yoga" for Patanjali may mean 'Union' with the Purusha, but > it definately does not mean 'Advaita'. > > If you want to "throw away your books, and meditate" that is > certainly your perogative, But if you want to Know the Non-Dual Self > of Vedanta,I suggest you dont give up your study of the Upanishads, > for that is the only source of such Knowledge. (NOT NIRVIKALPA > SAMADHI!) > > Hari Om > Atma Caitanya > > advaitin, Brian Milnes <b.milnes@b...> wrote: > > Dear Atmachaitanya > > > > In your long and well written treatise, you have made, I believe, > some fundamental errors. Please listen to the wise words of Harsha, > for they are well founded in experience of the absolute. > > > > I have less, but still recognize that the ultimate guru resides > within. Resolutely adhering to the interpreted teachings of a great > sage has no innate value. Some of what you state is just plain wrong. > For example: > > > > > However the doctrine that the attainment of > > > Nirvikalpa Samadhi, or the 'restraint of the mental > > > modifications'( chita Vriti Nirodha), leads to the > > > 'Direct Knowledge' of the self is thoroughly examined > > > and refuted by Shankaras' direct disciple Sureswaracharya > > > in his Brhadaranyaka Vartica, as well as his > > > Sambandha Vartica. > > > > Patanjali: > > 2. Yoga comes from transcending the processes of individual > > consciousness, > > 3. then is one absorbed in the essence of the inner witness [the > Self]. > > 4. Otherwise, (we identify) with the form of those processes. > > > > So he says that Yoga - Union (advaita) comes from transcending the > thought process, leaving pure awareness only. I can tell you from > personal experience that this is absolutely accurate and correct. > Either Sureswaracharya was misguided or (more likely) has been > misinterpreted. > > > > "Direct Knowledge" is a phrase that one might use to describe that > state of pure awareness - that which exists beyond thoughts. But of > course we are using the mundane to describe the subtle. And it is > almost impossible to justify or adequately describe to someone else. > (As someone else mentioned, one has to take such matters on good > faith, until one has had the same experience.) > > > > Samadhi is not a state of nothingness like deep sleep, it a state of > everythingness. > > > > Throw away the books, meditate and know thy Self. > > > > Love > > > > Brian > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 29, 2001 Report Share Posted December 29, 2001 Dear KK, Good points raised. - "K Kathirasan NCS" <kkathir <advaitin> Thursday, December 27, 2001 1:48 AM RE: Re: My thoughts on Samadhi & Advaita > KK: May I know what is this limited self which completely drops? If you are > referring to the body-mind-sense complex, then I can agree with you sir. Yes. That is what I meant. >But > what we say is that the Self is always revealing itself as > Awareness/Consciousness in the 3 states of experience. Therefore, there is > no need for a Samadhi experience to reveal the Atma. Shastra pramana and > shraddha are enough. For one who is established in the Self all the time expereince is no more necessary. But then even Shastra Pramana and Shradda are also not necessary. But for the ignorant (sometimes quite intelligent!) humans who can only intellectually state "I am Atma" repeating the Scriptural and teacher's statements, experience is quite valuable. > It sounds impossible for anyone to reside in the > Nirvikalpa Samadhi all the time (if we consider it to be a mindless state), > because we can't account for his transactions with the world without a mind. Nirvikalpa state is not a trance state which immobilizes your body along with your traditional mind. However, in the beginning it may turn out to be a trance state. But it need not always be a trance state. > KK: But it can be a possibility if we take that Nirvikalpa state as a state > where there are no erroneous notions about oneself, in other words the > absence of identification with body-sense-mind complex. Then it will make > alot of sense. This is what I meant. > KK: From what I learnt, the mahavakya 'Tat Tvam Asi' (not Samadhi) is enough > to liberate the Jiva provided he/she has the necessary qualifications such > as Shama, Dama, mumukshutvam etc.... Absolutely. To know that point, a certain trigger may be needed and that can be Nirvikalpa Samadhi experience. Just a book knowledge and a belief in it may not be enough. It is the knowledge of and belief in "words" that have created other religions, which are quite different from what Advaita is. > KK: Sir, the above is very speculative and most of it all it mystifies > Vedanta thereby making it non-communicable wisdom. I f Vedanta is just a philospohy to write and lecture about, then you are right. If it is the being and living there is no more mystery and it is available to every one, not just a chosen and erudite few! > KK: This will be my last post on this topic. Perhaps other members can > contribute. I would like to thank everyone for their patience with my > rattlings and apologies if it has taken too much of your time. I feel the same. Thanks for your questioning. Hopefully others may be patient enough to respond to your actual "original" question which started me going!! -- Vis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 29, 2001 Report Share Posted December 29, 2001 Hi! The real questions are: What are Information, Knowledge, Thoughts, Memory, and Experience? And how are they interconnected? Amy takers? -- Vis - "oceanwavejoy" <colette <advaitin> Saturday, December 29, 2001 5:39 AM Re: My thoughts on Samadhi & Advaita > advaitin, "egodust" <egodust@d...> wrote: > > hariH OM! > > namaste. > > > > we tend to glorify and "exotify" this [state of] nirvikalpa > samadhi. > > it simply implies "experience void of thought." > > Is 'it' an experience Frank? > > Col > > > > > Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. > Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ > To Post a message send an email to : advaitin > Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages > > > > Your use of is subject to > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 30, 2001 Report Share Posted December 30, 2001 greg goode wrote: > >[...] For many people, nirvikalpa samadhi, which is just one of many different comings and goings, *implies* one's natural state of Being. This samadhi and this implication are often (mis)taken for that state of Being. I've known people depressed and saddened for years, after attaining then losing nirvikalpa samadhi, which they had been taught was IT. > hariH OM! gregji- namaste. yes, nirvikalpa samadhi carries as many misconceptions as the concept of Self-realization itself! it's important for us to also understand that prarabdha karma, which is really [causally and manifestly] a mind-processing matter, has nothing to do with the established buddhic connection to the paramatman (being identical to brahman). this is something, in my view, that's widely misunderstood. many vedantins, for example, look to the behavior of who may be considered a jivanmuktha, and apply the characteristics of sthithaprajna (state of perfected yet attributeless Self, manifested in the jiva's persona). using myself as an illustration (not that i think of myself as what vedantins would refer to as a jnani; moreover i contend that defining oneself as a jnani *or* ajnani is critically deluded and patently false!), the body-mind mechanism of this jivatman has numerous flaws, not the least of which led to experiencing a month's worth of depression when my wife [with her mother] went to india during the maha kumbhamela (early this year) and, not hearing from her for 11 days, thought the worst or that she didn't care enough to call. however, as i surmised all along, she seems to have a more secure since higher developed buddhic experience/insight into our love than i evidently do, despite that i argue that she's not as sensitive to the *expression* of our love. nevertheless, throughout that period of confusion and delusionary sense of abandonment i was feeling, deeper within me was the undaunted/unphased bhavana (inner sensation-feeling) where burned the steady flame of atmanishtha. like the ocean, only the surface gets ruffled. so-called vedantins or anyone with practical understanding of the nondual perennial philosophy, would do well adopting this ocean metaphor and never forget it [as representing] their totality, their true nature: the holistic brahman in all Its Manifest and Unmanifest worlds of Being, in addition to embracing the limited mayavic specificity of the relative dynamics in any given now of the leela. i contend further, this is what's happening with *everyone*, whether they're "frontally, practically" aware of it or not. their true nature is reflective of that ocean metaphor, regardless if they're being even *violently* thwarted by avidya...whether through avarana (veiling) and/or vikshepa (dualistic projecting).. doesn't matter except *by appearance* in some much weaker Relative format where the ego is temporally dreaming away...erstwhile the Self remains ever-shining as the unwaivering depth of the human (or ANY entified sentient Being) experience in/of *every* NOW. the matter (of What IS) yet carries a masterful vibration of sheer Mystery, the likes of which renders ANY description or even philosophy attempting to apprehend its essence, empty and comedic! and yet(!).....regardless of all the above, That which IS, is *never not* in our every moment Being. no exceptions. peace in OM, frank Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 30, 2001 Report Share Posted December 30, 2001 advaitin, "egodust" <egodust@d...> wrote: > greg goode wrote: > > > >[...] For many people, nirvikalpa samadhi, which is just one > of many different comings and goings, *implies* one's natural state > of Being. This samadhi and this implication are often (mis)taken for > that state of Being. I've known people depressed and saddened for > years, after attaining then losing nirvikalpa samadhi, which they had > been taught was IT. > > > > hariH OM! gregji- > namaste. > > yes, nirvikalpa samadhi carries as many misconceptions as the concept > of Self-realization itself! > > it's important for us to also understand that prarabdha karma, which > is really [causally and manifestly] a mind-processing matter, has > nothing to do with the established buddhic connection to the > paramatman (being identical to brahman). this is something, in my > view, that's widely misunderstood. many vedantins, for example, look > to the behavior of who may be considered a jivanmuktha, and apply the > characteristics of sthithaprajna (state of perfected yet attributeless > Self, manifested in the jiva's persona). > > using myself as an illustration (not that i think of myself as what > vedantins would refer to as a jnani; moreover i contend that defining > oneself as a jnani *or* ajnani is critically deluded and patently > false!), the body-mind mechanism of this jivatman has numerous flaws, > not the least of which led to experiencing a month's worth of > depression when my wife [with her mother] went to india during the > maha kumbhamela (early this year) and, not hearing from her for 11 > days, thought the worst or that she didn't care enough to call. > however, as i surmised all along, she seems to have a more secure > since higher developed buddhic experience/insight into our love than i > evidently do, despite that i argue that she's not as sensitive to the > *expression* of our love. > > nevertheless, throughout that period of confusion and delusionary > sense of abandonment i was feeling, deeper within me was the > undaunted/unphased bhavana (inner sensation-feeling) where burned the > steady flame of atmanishtha. > > like the ocean, only the surface gets ruffled. > > so-called vedantins or anyone with practical understanding of the > nondual perennial philosophy, would do well adopting this ocean > metaphor and never forget it [as representing] their totality, their > true nature: the holistic brahman in all Its Manifest and Unmanifest > worlds of Being, in addition to embracing the limited mayavic > specificity of the relative dynamics in any given now of the leela. > > i contend further, this is what's happening with *everyone*, whether > they're "frontally, practically" aware of it or not. their true > nature is reflective of that ocean metaphor, regardless if they're > being even *violently* thwarted by avidya...whether through avarana > (veiling) and/or vikshepa (dualistic projecting).. doesn't matter > except *by appearance* in some much weaker Relative format where the > ego is temporally dreaming away...erstwhile the Self remains > ever-shining as the unwaivering depth of the human (or ANY entified > sentient Being) experience in/of *every* NOW. > > the matter (of What IS) yet carries a masterful vibration of sheer > Mystery, the likes of which renders ANY description or even philosophy > attempting to apprehend its essence, empty and comedic! > > and yet(!).....regardless of all the above, That which IS, is *never > not* in our every moment Being. no exceptions. > > peace in OM, > frank That's beautiful Frank. Thanks for sharing. Much love to you & Erica. Some things I want to say ... Enlightened people are still human. In fact that's what I refer to as the beauty of vulnerability. It is the relationship between emptiness & form, or spirit & matter (& soul in between), which is the force of evolution experiencing Itself. It is also the sacred interplay between masculine & feminine. Here in this case you exposed your vulnerability & the beauty of relationship it offers between the divine marriage you share with your beautiful wife who has her own inner wisdom to reflect for your continued evolution, eventhough inwardly you are awake. This is spoken of in the alchemical scriptures as the inner marriage but as we know has an outer show ... Stillness & movement coexist & can do so in harmony. I love Jnaneshwar's poem Shiva & Shakti which expresses the loving devotion between formless & form or absolute Self & all things ... I honor the God & the Goddess, The eternal parents of the universe. The Lover, out of boundless love, Takes the form of the Beloved. What beauty! Both are made of the same nectar And share the same food. Out of supreme love They swallow up each other But separate again For the joy of being two. They are not completely the same But neither are they different. No one can tell exactly what they are. How intense is their longing To be with each other. This is their greatest bliss. Never, not even in jest, Do they allow their unity To be disturbed. They are so averse to separation That even though they have become This entire world, Never for a moment do they let A difference come between them Even though they see All that is animate & inanimate, Arising from within themselves, They never recognize a third. They sit together in the same place, Both wearing a garment of light. >From the beginning of time They have been together, Reveling in their own Supreme Love. They created a difference To enjoy this world. When that "difference" Had one glimpse of their intimacy It could not help but merge Back into the bliss Of their eternal union. Without the God, There is no Goddess, And without the Goddess There is no God. How sweet is their love! The entire universe is too small To contain them, Yet they live happily In the tiniest particle. The life of one Is the life of the other, And not even a blade of grass Can grow without both of them. Only these two live In this house Called the universe. When either one is asleep The other stays awake And plays the part of both. Should both of them awake, The whole universe Would vanish without a trace. They become two For the sake of divine play, But in every moment They seek to become one again. Both of them see together, Both of them are seen together. They are happy only when together. Shiva has become all forms: Both dark & light, Both male & female. By the union of these two halves The whole universe comes to be. Two lutes make one note. Two roses make one fragrance. Two lamps make one light. Two lips - one word. Two eyes - one sight. Shiva & Shakti - one universe. Though appearing separate They are forever joined, Always eating from the same plate. She is a chaste & devoted partner; She cannot live without Her Lord. And without Her, The one who can do everything Cannot even appear. How can we distinguish These two from each other? He appears because of Her, And she exists because of Him. We cannot tell sugar >From its sweetness Nor camphor >From its fragrance. To capture light We take hold of fire. To capture the Supreme Shiva We must take hold of Shakti. Light illumines the Sun, But the Sun itself Creates that light. The glorious Sun & its light Are one & the same. An object has a reflection: When looking we see two images, Yet there is only one thing. Likewise, this world is a reflection Of the Supreme Lord. We may see two, Yet only One exists. Out of pure emptiness She gives rise to the entire world. Everything depends on Her. Yet She exists only because Of Her Lord. Her form is the whole world, It is the glory of God made manifest. God Himself created Her form, God Himself became that form. Seeing Herself beautifully adorned, She could not bear that Her Lord Might have less then Herself. And so she adorned Him With every name & form in the universe. Merged in unity There was nothing to do. So Shakti, the bringer of good fortune, Created this world for the sake of divine play. She reveals Her Lord's splendor By melting Herself & becoming everything; And He glorifies Her, By hiding Himself completely. Out of His great love to see Her He becomes the Seer of the universe. If he could not watch Her play, He would have no reason to exist. To meet her call He takes on the form Of the whole universe; Without Her He remains naked. He is so mysterious & subtle, That while apparent He cannot be seen. It is by Her grace alone That He comes into being. She awakens Her Lord, And serves Him a feast The size of the universe. With great delight He swallows up every dish And also the one who serves Him. While He is sleeping, She gives birth to all that exists And all that does not exist. While She is sleeping He has no form at all. Look! He is hidden, And cannot be found without Her. For they are mirrors, Each revealing the other. Embracing Her, Shiva enjoys His own bliss. Though all the joy Of the world belongs to Him, There is no joy without Her. She is His very form, But Her radiance comes from Him. Blending into one, They enjoy the nectar of their own union. Shiva & Shakti are one, Like air & the wind, Like gold & its luster. Shiva & shakti cannot be separated. They are like musk & its fragrance, Like fire & its heat. In the light of the Sun There is no difference between day & night In the Light of the Supreme Truth There is no difference between Shiva & Shakti. Shiva and Shakti envy the Primordial Sound "Om" because they are seen as two while the sound Om is always regarded as one. Jnanadeva says, "I honor the union of Shiva and Shakti, who devour this world of name and form like a sweet dish. All that remains is the One." Embracing each other they merge into One, As darkness merges with the light At the breaking of dawn. When we discover their Unity, All words and all thoughts dissolve into silence, Just as when the Universal Deluge comes, the waters of the ocean, and those of the Ganges, will merge into one. The air and the wind will merge into the endless sky; The sun and its light will merge into the Universal Fire. With a true vision of them, the seer and the seen merge into one. Again I honor the two who are one. They are like an ocean of knowledge. And only those who throw themselves in can drink of their waters. I appear separate from them just so I can honor them. But that separation is not real, it is only in name. My praise is like that of a gold ornament honoring the gold from which it is made. When the tongue is used to pronounce the word "tongue," Is there any difference between the word and the object meant by it? One is called "ocean," the other is called "Ganges," and though these are different names, Their waters are still the same. The Sun can be seen, but so can the objects it illumines. Does this mean there are two Suns? If moonlight shines on the surface of the Moon, Or if the light of a lamp reveals the lamp, can we claim that there is another? The syllable "Om" is made up of the sounds A, U, and M, does that mean it is divided? The letter "N" is made up of three lines, does that mean it is more than one? When the luster of a pearl shines upon its surface, The pearl's beauty is only enhanced. If one's bounty is not lessened, and only profit is obtained, Why should the ocean not enjoy its waves, or a flower its own fragrance? So I enjoy the worship of Shiva and Shakti, though I am never separate from them. A reflected image disappears when the mirror is removed, Ripples merge back into the water when the wind becomes still. When sleep comes to an end, a man returns to his senses. Now my individuality has come to an end, and I have returned to Shiva and Shakti. Salt gives up its salty taste to become one with the ocean; I give up my individual self to become Shiva and Shakti. When the covering is removed, the air inside a plantain tree merges with the air outside. And this is how I honor Shiva and Shakti- by removing all separation and becoming one with them. by Jnaneshwar With Respect, Colette Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 30, 2001 Report Share Posted December 30, 2001 dear anand namaskar i feel u r v right just reading does not give u knowledge ie gyan. at best it can give u direction but if u do not follow the direction mere reading can only add your talking or writing ability and that's all n k bali --- Anand Natarajan <harihara.geo wrote: > Namaste AtmaChaitanyaji, > > I have a basic question. Is'nt all this > knowledge > from books(Whether they be Upanishads or > Brahmasutras) > also in the plane of maya? After all it is you who > read them. It is you who understand them. All > understanding of books is dependent on your state of > mind. > Unless you know who you are in truth, all your > understanding is conditioned by the mind. Therefore > no > amount of book reading can give you knowledge. All > it > can give you is directions for sadhana. > > > Anand > > > > If you want to "throw away your books, and > > meditate" that is > > certainly your perogative, But if you want to Know > > the Non-Dual Self > > of Vedanta,I suggest you dont give up your study > of > > the Upanishads, > > for that is the only source of such Knowledge. > (NOT > > NIRVIKALPA > > SAMADHI!) > > > > Hari Om > > Atma Caitanya > > > > > > > Send your FREE holiday greetings online! > http://greetings. > ===== with best wishes, N.K.BALI Visit my site on ' Bhagavad Gita ', a spiritual delight.You will love it. http://in.geocities.com/gitabykrishna ______________________ Download Logos, Picture Messages & Ringtones for your mobile phone Visit http://mobile..co.in Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 31, 2001 Report Share Posted December 31, 2001 advaitin, "oceanwavejoy" <colette@b...> wrote: > Some things I want to say ... Enlightened people are still human. > In fact that's what I refer to as the beauty of vulnerability. It is > the relationship between emptiness & form, or spirit & matter (& soul > in between), which is the force of evolution experiencing Itself. > > It is also the sacred interplay between masculine & feminine. Here in > this case you exposed your vulnerability & the beauty of relationship > it offers between the divine marriage you share with your beautiful > wife who has her own inner wisdom to reflect for your continued > evolution, eventhough inwardly you are awake. This is spoken of in > the alchemical scriptures as the inner marriage but as we know has an > outer show ... Stillness & movement coexist & can do so in harmony. > > I love Jnaneshwar's poem Shiva & Shakti which expresses the loving > devotion between formless & form or absolute Self & all things ... dear mitri coletteji, well said, and yes we're seeing the same *relative* interpretation of brahman's leela (which latter cements the fundamental ideology of advaita itself!).......... we have to be mindful though that it's just that, an interpretation. as humans we're supremely *incapable* of beholding the "thing itself" in any form of ideology, regardless how rarefied. simply because its primal condition is an inscrutable Mystery. (and we wouldn't want to have it any other way! ..at least i know i sure as heck wouldn't.......) anyway, incredibly beautiful poem. his writing style is almost as unique as the message itself. (well, errr, not even close, but you know what i mean :-) much of that i'm sure is due to someone's less than syntactical poetic ability....nevertheless it works somehow for what winds up being an "instructional work," and masterpiece at that! i was going to reply to your earlier post: noting re if the nirvikalpa samadhi [associated with Self-realization] is experiential. from what i've seen, the instances where some gurus or rishis nix the idea that "experience" can be had in that state, is only geared to dismantle the sadhak's (aspirant's) intellectual grip on that or any other concept, since these are the main things keeping the jiva confused and bewildered in the mithya of samsara (the false, limited counterpart of maya). fact is however, the Self *is* experiencing Itself. If we analyze the basis of Self-realization, being [the essence of] sat-chit-ananda, the "chit" (pure consciousness) implies the experience of "ananda" (bliss). the idea of "no experiencer" has to do with the nonexistence of a separate ego, not the Self Itself! the Self is the Singular Witness to the Whole 'Shebang' of the multitudes--and i mean *multitudes*--of entified Beings in the universe of leela. (jeez, if we can just look up in the clear night sky and use let's say a little more imagination than usual re what's REALLY goin on out there... whereupon, if successful, we'd be cranked-up enough by that single experience alone to drop Reason's ancient stronghold on us like a sizzling hot potatoe! hahaha!) peace in OM, frank Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 31, 2001 Report Share Posted December 31, 2001 advaitin, "egodust" <egodust@d...> wrote: > advaitin, "oceanwavejoy" <colette@b...> wrote: > > Some things I want to say ... Enlightened people are still human. > > In fact that's what I refer to as the beauty of vulnerability. It is > > the relationship between emptiness & form, or spirit & matter (& > soul > > in between), which is the force of evolution experiencing Itself. > > > > It is also the sacred interplay between masculine & feminine. Here > in > > this case you exposed your vulnerability & the beauty of > relationship > > it offers between the divine marriage you share with your beautiful > > wife who has her own inner wisdom to reflect for your continued > > evolution, eventhough inwardly you are awake. This is spoken of in > > the alchemical scriptures as the inner marriage but as we know has > an > > outer show ... Stillness & movement coexist & can do so in harmony. > > > > I love Jnaneshwar's poem Shiva & Shakti which expresses the loving > > devotion between formless & form or absolute Self & all things ... > > dear mitri coletteji, > > well said, and yes we're seeing the same *relative* interpretation of > brahman's leela (which latter cements the fundamental ideology of > advaita itself!).......... > > we have to be mindful though that it's just that, an interpretation. > as humans we're supremely *incapable* of beholding the "thing itself" > in any form of ideology, regardless how rarefied. simply because its > primal condition is an inscrutable Mystery. (and we wouldn't want to > have it any other way! ..at least i know i sure as heck > wouldn't.......) > > anyway, incredibly beautiful poem. his writing style is almost as > unique as the message itself. (well, errr, not even close, but you > know what i mean :-) much of that i'm sure is due to someone's less > than syntactical poetic ability....nevertheless it works somehow for > what winds up being an "instructional work," and masterpiece at that! > > i was going to reply to your earlier post: noting re if the nirvikalpa > samadhi [associated with Self-realization] is experiential. from what > i've seen, the instances where some gurus or rishis nix the idea that > "experience" can be had in that state, is only geared to dismantle the > sadhak's (aspirant's) intellectual grip on that or any other concept, > since these are the main things keeping the jiva confused and > bewildered in the mithya of samsara (the false, limited counterpart of > maya). > > fact is however, the Self *is* experiencing Itself. If we analyze the > basis of Self-realization, being [the essence of] sat-chit-ananda, the > "chit" (pure consciousness) implies the experience of "ananda" > (bliss). the idea of "no experiencer" has to do with the nonexistence > of a separate ego, not the Self Itself! the Self is the Singular > Witness to the Whole 'Shebang' of the multitudes--and i mean > *multitudes*--of entified Beings in the universe of leela. (jeez, if > we can just look up in the clear night sky and use let's say a little > more imagination than usual re what's REALLY goin on out there... > whereupon, if successful, we'd be cranked-up enough by that single > experience alone to drop Reason's ancient stronghold on us like a > sizzling hot potatoe! hahaha!) > > peace in OM, > frank Well for sure it sure is humbling Frank to be reminded that any use of words and conceptual meaning is just the lila. But what about the other reminder that even all, is just That so is no need to belittle but honour even in its differentiation .. For sure we need to not let attachment to forms overshadow That. imo, Colette Happy New Year 2002 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2002 Report Share Posted January 1, 2002 Dearest Seekers, I wish you all a 'Happy New Year 2002'. We had seen very interesting viewpoints towards 'Study of Scriptures' and 'Meditation'. It is my understanding that both of them are helpers on the way and we have in Gita12:12 something that is more fundamental than the above two, which I quote here: Gita 12:12 - 'Knowledge' is indeed better than 'practice' ; 'meditation' is better than 'knowledge' ; 'renunciation of the fruits-of-actions' is better than 'meditation' ; peace immediately follows 'renunciation. '. Please feel free to confirm or deny the above. Kind Regards, Raghava Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.